Dish Technologies L.L.C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

14717190 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/717,190 05/20/2015 Gregory Greene 120299-8055.US00 2788
132861 7590 02/13/2020
Perkins Coie LLP - DISH Network
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY GREENE
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, 13–17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EchoStar
Technologies L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “trick function viewing of media content.”
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for presentation control of media
content, the method comprising:
receiving, at a media device, the media content that is
currently received in a broadcasted media content stream;
presenting, on a display, a first presentation area, wherein
the first presentation area presents a video portion of the media
content;
receiving, at the media device, a user command that
initiates a video presentation trick function; and
presenting, on the display and in response to the user
command, a second presentation area, wherein the second
presentation area presents a smaller-sized version of the video
portion of the media content in accordance with the video
presentation trick function,
wherein the first presentation area and the second
presentation area are concurrently presented on the display.

Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ubillos US 2008/0152299 A1 June 26, 2008
Haj-khalil US 2009/0228922 A1 Sep. 10, 2009
Beyabani US 2009/0307731 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Oughriss US 2014/0118616 A1 May 1, 2014
Kang US 2015/0101001 A1 Apr. 9, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Haj-khalil and Ubillos. Final Act. 3–11.
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Haj-khalil, Ubillos, and Beyabani. Final Act. 11–18; see also Ans. 3
(withdrawing rejection of claim 2).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Haj-khalil, Ubillos, and Oughriss. Final Act. 18–21.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Haj-khalil, Ubillos, and Kang. Final Act. 21–23.
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Haj-khalil, Ubillos, Kang, and Beyabani. Final Act. 23–29; see also Ans. 3
(withdrawing rejection of claim 12).
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 11 over Haj-khalil and
Ubillos
The Examiner finds Haj-khalil and Ubillos teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3–11. In particular, the Examiner finds Haj-khalil teaches
all limitations of claim 1 except for “wherein the second presentation area
presents a smaller-sized version of the video portion of the media content in
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
4
accordance with the video presentation trick function,” as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds Ubillos teaches “wherein the second
presentation area presents a smaller-sized version of the video portion of the
media content in accordance with the video presentation trick function,” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing ¶¶ 46–49, Figs. 2A–4E).
The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains to and to modify the apparatus
and method of Haj-Khalil et al. to include wherein the second
presentation area presents a smaller-sized version of the video
portion of the media content in accordance with the video
presentation trick function as taught by Ubillos for the advantage
of previewing a frame in the preview pane.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
[i.] Appellant proffers that when the Ubillos scrubbing
process is added into the Haj-Khalil system to create the
modified Haj-Khalil system, the smaller presentation area with
the time line in the modified Haj-Khalil system will always be
the same as the larger image in the modified Haj-Khalil system
(because that is simply how the Ubillos scrubbing process
works).
Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Appeal Br. 11 (“since [in claims 1 and 11]
presentation under the trick function operation shown in the smaller second
presentation area will necessarily be different from the media content event
presented in the first presentation area, embodiments defined by Claims 1
and 11 will be different from the modified Haj-Khalil system”), Reply Br.
11–12.
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
5
[ii.] [E]ven if one skilled in the art could separate the smaller
Ubillos presentation area with the time line from the larger
Ubillos preview pane 112 so that only the smaller presentation
area with the time line can be separately used to modify the Haj-
Khalil system, the resultant smaller presentation area with the
time line would no longer be a trick function.
Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 15.
[iii.] Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would not be
motivated to simply pick out the smaller presentation area with
the time line from the larger preview pane 112 because the
disclosure on Ubillos, on the whole, is directed to using the
Ubillos larger preview pane 112 in concert with the Ubillos
smaller presentation area with the time line so as to facilitate
review of a stream of media content.
Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 16–17.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s explanation of
the proposed combination given in the Examiner’s Answer:
[The] Examiner states the combination of Haj-Khalil in view of
Ubillos will result in for instance in the example of the football
content, that the football content is 1) paused showing the player
almost scoring, and then 2) the paused football is able to perform
trick play functions (i.e., go back and forth) to show the zoomed
picture of the player almost scoring and 3) scrubbing the zoomed
picture to provide the small box of the player almost scoring (i.e.,
second presentation area presenting smaller-sized version of the
video portion of the media content in accordance with the video
presentation trick function).
Ans. 10.
Appellant’s arguments do not show any error because these arguments
are not addressing the Examiner’s proposed combination.
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
6
Appellant’s argument (i) assumes that Haj-Khalil, when modified,
would have Ubillos’s time line in the smaller presentation area and have
Ubillos’s preview pane in the larger presentation area. See Appeal Br. 10;
see also Reply Br. 11. According to Appellant, such a resultant combination
would fail to teach the currently received media content in the first
presentation area with a smaller-sized version in accordance with the video
presentation trick function presented in the second area. Id. This argument is
unpersuasive because it fails to address the Examiner’s proffered
combination of the references. Ans. 10. In particular, we find that modifying
Haj-Khalil, in light of Ubillos’s teaching of a trick function (scrubbing)
would result in the small presentation area in Haj-Khalil allowing the
zoomed picture to be presented in accordance with the video presentation
trick function (scrubbing), while keeping the large image paused (presenting
a video portion of the media content). See Ans. 10.
Similarly, Appellant’s argument (ii) argues that modifying only the
smaller presentation area in Haj-Khalil would no longer provide a trick
function. See Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 15. Again, contrary to this
argument, we find that the combined teachings of the references suggest
modifying Haj-Khalil, in light of Ubillos’s teaching of trick function
(scrubbing), such that the small presentation area in Haj-Khalil allows the
zoomed picture to be presented in accordance with the video presentation
trick function (scrubbing), while keeping the large image paused (presenting
a video portion of the media content). See Ans. 10.
Appellant’s argument (iii) also does not show any error because the
argument assumes that only the time line from Ubillos is used in the
combination. See Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 16–17. Again, contrary
to this argument, we find that the combined teachings of the references
Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
7
suggest modifying Haj-Khalil, in light of Ubillos’s teaching of trick function
(scrubbing), such that the small presentation area in Haj-Khalil allows the
zoomed picture to be presented in accordance with the video presentation
trick function (scrubbing), while keeping the large image paused (presenting
a video portion of the media content). See Ans. 10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 11, which are not
separately argued with particularity.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 8, 9, and 16 over Haj-khalil,
Ubillos, and Beyabani
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 5, 8, 9, and
16. See Appeal Br. 4–19; see also Reply Br. 5–18.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, and
16.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 17 over Haj-khalil, Ubillos, and
Oughriss
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 7 and 17.
See Appeal Br. 4–19; see also Reply Br. 5–18.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 17.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 over Haj-khalil, Ubillos, and Kang
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 10. See
Appeal Br. 4–19; see also Reply Br. 5–18.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

Appeal 2019-001094
Application 14/717,190
8
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 13–15 over Haj-khalil, Ubillos, Kang,
and Beyabani
Claims 13–15 depend from claim 12, which does not stand rejected.
See Ans. 3–4.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–
15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed-in-part.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 11 103 Haj-khalil, Ubillos 1, 3, 4, 6, 11
5, 8, 9, 16 103 Haj-khalil, Ubillos,
Beyabani
5, 8, 9, 16
7, 17 103 Haj-khalil, Ubillos,
Oughriss
7, 17
10 103 Haj-khalil, Ubillos,
Kang
10
13–15 103 Haj-khalil, Ubillos,
Kang, Beyabani
13–15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 16,
17
13–15
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART