Ex Parte Afentakis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

13713956 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

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.
13/713,956 12/13/2012 Themistokles Afentakis SLA3042 7783
55286 7590 02/10/2016
SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC.
C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI
P.O. BOX 270829
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198-2829
EXAMINER
SCHNURR, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THEMISTOKLES AFENTAKIS
____________________

Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to providing an auxiliary electronic program
guide (AEPG) using a compact code such as a two-dimensional matrix bar
code. Spec. 1; Abstract. Claims 1, 13, 21, and 22, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An Auxiliary Electronic Program Guide (AEPG) television
system, the system comprising:
a receiver having a network interface to accept broadcast
channel information, including programs with visual content
and Electronic Program Guide (EPG) information describing
the programs, the receiver converting selected programs into
display data supplied at a display interface;
a display having an input to accept the display data and a
screen to present images for the selected channels;
an auxiliary module for converting the EPG information
into a code signal representing the EPG information;
a first user interface to supply the code signal to a remote
device;
a second user interface to accept an initiation signal sent
directly from the remote device, and to supply a trigger signal
to the auxiliary module; and,
wherein the auxiliary module converts the EPG
information into a code signal representing the EPG
information in response to the trigger signal.

13. In a portable electronic device, a system for deriving
Auxiliary Electronic Program Guide (AEPG) information from
a photographed compact code image, the system comprising:
a network interface;
a processor;
a non-transitory memory;
a camera with an optical interface to capture a
photographed compact code image representation of Electronic
Program Guide (EPG) information, and an electronic interface
to supply a digital information representation of the compact
code image;
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

3
a conversion application stored in non-transitory memory
as a sequence of processor executable steps for converting the
digital information representation of the compact code image
into word segments;
a communication application stored in non-transitory
memory as a sequence of processor executable steps for
executing searches via the network interface for AEPG
information based upon the word segments, and to retrieve
AEPG search results; and,
a television interface for directly sending an initiation
signal to a television, to trigger the supply of the compact code
image.

21. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
comprising computer executable instructions, which when
executed by a processor of a computer device, cause the
computing device to:
accept a compact code image representing Electronic
Program Guide (EPG) information, and convert the EPG
information into word segments; and,
execute AEPG information searches based upon the word
segments via a network interface, retrieve search results, and
present the search results to a computing device user interface.

22. An Auxiliary Electronic Program Guide (AEPG) television
system, the system comprising:
a receiver having a network interface to accept broadcast
channel information, including programs with visual content
and Electronic Program Guide (EPG) information describing
the programs, the receiver converting selected programs into
display data supplied at a display interface;
a display having an input to accept the display data and a
screen to present images for the selected channels;
an auxiliary module for converting the EPG information
into a code signal representing the EPG information; and,
a first user interface to supply the code signal to a remote
device, wherein the first user interface is selected from a group
consisting of a cellular telephone, Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11
WiFi, a proprietary wireless, and infrared signal interface.
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

4
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–10, 13–18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on Gerhards (US 2012/0155838 A1; published June 21,
2012). Final Act. 3–6.
R2. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Gerhards and Minnick (US 2012/0199643 A1; published Aug. 9, 2012).
Final Act. 3–13. Final Act. 7–8.
R3. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gerhards and Friedman (US 2012/0291073 A1; published Nov. 15, 2012).
Final Act. 8.
R4. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gerhards, Friedman, and Minnick. Final Act. 8–9.

ANALYSIS
§ 102(e) – Gerhards
CLAIMS 1 AND 13
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1 and
13 for the following reasons:
1. Gerhards’ Quick Response (QR) code includes instructions
whereas the EPG information recited in the claimed invention does
not. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1–2.
2. Gerhards describes no means of triggering the display of a QR
code. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1–2.
3. Gerhards does not disclose a television interface directly receiving
an initiation signal from a remote device, which causes a television
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

5
auxiliary module to convert EPG information into a code signal.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1–2.
4. Gerhards does not disclose a remote device capable of triggering
the display of a QR code via indirect communications with a
service provider, through network 108 and server 110. App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 1–2.
Arguments 1–4 are not supported by corresponding language in
claims 1 and 13. Specifically, argument 1 assumes the claimed EPG
information excludes instructions, which it does not. Argument 2 states
Gerhards has no means for triggering a display of a QR code, but the same is
true of claims 1 and 13, which recite generation of a code signal, but not its
display. Argument 3 assumes the claims recite a television interface directly
receiving an initiation signal from a remote device. However, claim 1 has
no such limitation. Argument 4 concerns a remote device capable of
triggering display of a QR code via indirect communications. Claims 1 and
13 do not recite triggering display of a QR code.
It is well-established that limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we find these arguments unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
Regarding argument 3 in relation to claim 13, the Examiner cited inter
alia paragraph 54 of Gerhards, which states:
In other embodiments, the program guide may be configured to
reveal additional information about the program when selected
by a user with, for example, their remote control. In this
embodiment, the matrix code 140 may not appear in the general
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

6
guide, but may appear when additional information is revealed
after selection by the user.
Final Act. 5. Thus, in Gerhards, when a user selects (initiates) a program
using their remote control (which has a television interface), it transmits a
signal (initiation signal) to the television, which causes (triggers) the display
(supply) of additional information about the selected program, including the
matrix code 140 (code signal). In this regard, we note that the preamble of
claim 13 recites “[i]n a portable electronic device . . . ,” a phrase that, in the
absence of any restrictive language to the contrary, we interpret open-
endedly to encompass the possibility of multiple devices, including,
collectively, Gerhards’ remote control 128 and reader (e.g., smartphone)
106, and their associated functionality. Accordingly, Gerhards teaches the
claimed feature, and we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the
rejection.
CLAIM 22
Appellant argues claim 22 recites a television sending a code signal
representing converted EPG information to a remote device via a first
interface that can be, inter alia, a cellular telephone. App. Br. 14; Reply Br.
2–3. According to Appellant, Gerhards teaches only the transmission of an
optical QR code. Id.
As the Examiner finds, Gerhards states: “[a] user may scan the
[matrix] code using, for example, a smartphone.” Ans. 3–4; Final Act. 6
(citing Gerhards ¶¶ 16, 17, 28). The Examiner further notes the claim does
not require a cellular telephone to receive the code signal wirelessly via a
cellular network, as argued by Appellant, and could instead do so through
transmission of an optical code signal. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

7
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions, claim 22 does not recite a
television “sending” a code signal to a remote device. Rather, claim 22
recites a television system comprising inter alia “a first user interface to
supply the code signal to a remote device.” Thus, Appellant’s argument,
premised on claim 22 “sending” a code signal, is not commensurate in scope
with the claim. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error for
this reason. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348, supra.
Furthermore, claims are interpreted according to their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321-322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain meaning of a claim is the
ordinary and customary meaning given to a term by those of skill in the art
in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Examiner properly regarded the claimed “first user interface to
supply the code signal to a remote device” as the optical interface of a
television used to supply Gerhard’s smartphone with an optical code to scan
via a presentation device. See Gerhards ¶ 16, 17. As noted above,
Appellant’s claims do not recite the cellular telephone interface supplies the
code using only wireless cellular signals to the exclusion of optical signals.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the disputed claim limitation is taught
by Gerhards.
Moreover, under yet another interpretation permitted by the claim
scope, the “first user interface” could be interpreted as an element of
Gerhards’ smartphone because the claimed system does not state such
interface is part of the television. Gerhards’ smartphone uses the scanned
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

8
matrix code to communicate with systems 110 of the satellite service
provider or another smartphone 106, either of which may be regarded the
claimed “remote device.” Id. See also Gerhards, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
CLAIM 21
Appellant argues Gerhards does not convert EPG information into
word segments. App. Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant also argues
Gerhards’ reader or smartphone does not conduct searches based on word
segments via a network interface, as recited in claim 21. Id. The Examiner
finds Gerhards discloses these features. Ans. 4; Final Act. 6 (citing
Gerhards ¶¶ 59, 60).
Reviewing the Specification, we note there is no special definition of
“word segment.” The cited paragraphs of Gerhards state the instruction
portion of the data stored in the matrix code may be to access a website
available via the program data of the matrix code. Gerhards ¶ 59.
Moreover, the matrix code may include instructions to prompt a user with a
question to determine their intention, such as “Just this episode or entire
series?” Gerhards ¶ 60. A response to this prompt would necessarily
involve a search by the service provider to provide the requested episodes to
the user’s set-top box. Id.
In Gerhards, the text prompt may be regarded as the claimed word
segments. Alternatively, it is well-known in the art that computer
instructions contain words composed of bytes, and the words contained in
the instructions could also be interpreted as the claimed word segments.
Thus, because we agree with the Examiner the claimed limitations are taught
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

9
or suggested by Gerhards, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the
rejection.
§ 103(a) – Gerhards and Minnick
CLAIMS 11 AND 12
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 11 and
12 because Minnick fails to disclose the alleged deficiencies of Gerhards
noted with respect to claim 1. Because we found Gerhards discloses the
limitations of claim 1, there was no deficiency the Examiner needed
Minnick to supplement. Appellant offers no rebuttal to the Examiner’s
findings that dependent claims 11 and 12 are taught by Gerhards and
Minnick (see Final Act. 7–8 (citing Gerhards ¶¶ 16, 53; Minnick ¶ 12)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection.
§ 103(a) – Gerhards and Friedman
CLAIM 19
Appellant argues Friedman fails to disclose a television interface to
accept AEPG search results, which are then sent as an information package
to a television. App. Br. 18–19. Appellant also argues Friedman fails to
disclose a remote device receiving AEPG search results. Id. The Examiner
finds these limitations are taught by Friedman. Final Act. 8 (citing Friedman
¶ 48; Fig. 7).
Friedman teaches that a media processor 150 allows for simultaneous
receipt of media services from a plurality of sources, which can include STB
106, a media server via gateway 104, and a mobile device 116 via the
gateway 104 (¶ 20; Figs. 1, 2, 4). Friedman states the media processor 150
can receive and display supplemental content 712 from a mobile device 116
via gateway 104 (¶ 48; Fig. 7). Friedman also states the mobile device 116
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

10
can include a bar code reader for reading a two-dimensional bar code 710 to
generate an image portion 750 on the display device 108 (¶ 49; Fig. 7).
Friedman discloses media services include an EPG (¶ 17; Fig. 2), and that
media devices, such as the mobile device 116, can be used to access media
services (¶ 20).
We agree with the Examiner the features of claim 19 are taught or
suggested by the Examiner’s cited combination of Friedman and Gerhards.
In this regard, we note “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–16
(2007). Appellant has presented no evidence the combination of the
reference features would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in the rejection. Appellant’s remaining arguments
concerning claim 13 were addressed previously.
§ 103(a) – Gerhards, Friedman, and Minnick
CLAIM 20
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 20 for
the reasons stated with respect to its independent claim 13. As explained,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 13, so
these arguments with respect to dependent claim 20 are likewise
unpersuasive. The Examiner finds the pause feature of claim 20 is shown in
Appeal 2014-003463
Application 13/713,956

11
Minnick (¶ 53) and we agree with the Examiner’s finding. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 20.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims.
Therefore, we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously stated. In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 9–16,
and 18–22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED