Ex Parte Barnes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13015429 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/015,429 01127/2011 Tracy Barnes
36738 7590 10/03/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
200903178.01 2606
EXAMINER
HANCE, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRACY BARNES and HYEHOON YI
Appeal2015-005724 1
Application 13/015,429
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26-30.
App. Br. 10-13. Claims 1-14, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25 have been canceled.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a display device including content
area (102) displaying content and an interactive banner (104) including
information associated with displayed content and controls for content
rendering and device settings. Spec. iii! 23-25, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 15 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
15. A computer readable storage medium that is not a carrier
wave bearing instructions executable by a processor accessing
the medium to cause the processor to:
access content and metadata associated with the content
from a content source;
display, on a display device, the content and automatically
and contemporaneously with displaying the content, upon
accessing the content and without further user interaction,
display an interactive banner that integrates, into the banner, the
metadata associated with the content and plural display device
setting selector elements, each display device setting selector
element being selectable to perform a function associated with
the selector element; and
wherein the plural display device setting selector elements
include an input source selector element directly selectable from
the banner to automatically change input source to the display
device, a favorite channel selector element directly electable
from the banner to automatically add currently displayed content
to a favorites list.
Coleman et al.
("Coleman")
Nishikawa et al.
Moreau et al.
("Moreau")
Prior Art Relied Upon
us 5,844,620
US 2001/001694 7 Al
US 2005/0125827 Al
2
Dec. 1, 1998
Aug. 23, 2001
June 9, 2005
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
Akhavan et al.
("Akhavan")
Ahmad-Taylor
Mitchem
Moshiri et al.
("Moshiri")
Harr ens ti en
US 2005/0229210 Al
US 2005/0235316 Al
US 2008/0168497 Al
US 2008/0222675 Al
US 7,992,183 Bl
Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 13, 2005
Oct. 20, 2005
July 10, 2008
Sept. 11, 2008
Aug. 2, 2011
Claims 15, 17, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, and Moshiri. Final Act. 3-5.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moshiri, and Nishikawa. Final Act. 5---6.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moshiri, and Mitchem. Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 26 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moreau, and Official Notice,
evidenced by Coleman. Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 5.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moshiri, and Harrenstien. Final Act. 10.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moreau, and Moshiri. Final Act. 11.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahmad-Taylor, Akhavan, Moreau, and Harrenstien. Final Act. 11.
3
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4--9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1--4.2
Regarding claim 15, Appellants argue that the combination of Ahmad-
Taylor, Akhavan, and Moshiri does not teach "a favorite channel selector
element directly electable from the banner to automatically add currently
displayed content to a favorites list," as recited. App. Br. 4. In particular,
Appellants contend the banner in Moshiri is solely the horizontal rectangle
in Figures 4A--4C containing only the information of the content currently
being displayed. App. Br. 4 (citing Moshiri Figs. 4A--4C). Appellants
additionally assert the favorite channel selector ( 406) in Moshiri is part of an
interface, separated by borders, in the vertical rectangle, the channel user
interface element ( 400), accessed by a higher level interface depicted in
Figures 3A-3C in Moshiri. App. Br. 4 (citing Moshiri Figs. 3A-3C, 4A-
4C), 6; Reply Br. 2; see Moshiri i-f 34. Appellants argue the horizontal
rectangle with the channel user interface element ( 400) is outside the scope
of the term, "banner," as explicitly described in Akhavan. App. Br. 5 (citing
Akhavan i-f 6); Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend the favorite channel
selector ( 406) in Moshiri does not automatically add channels to a favorites
list, but presents to the user the favorites list in another screen permitting
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 17, 2014) ("App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed May 7, 2015) ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
May 7, 2015) ("Ans."), and the Final Office Action (mailed October 16,
2014) ("Final Act.") for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
adding a favorite. App. Br. 6 (citing Moshiri i-f 37); Reply Br. 2. Appellants
argue the favorites are added to the list solely by the user with the
"FAVORITES" icon (640). App. Br. 6 (citing Moshiri Figs. 6(a), 6U)); see
Moshiri i-f 43.
We find these arguments unavailing. The Examiner finds the banner
in Moshiri is the on-screen user interface displayed over the program content
as both the channel user interface element ( 400) and the vertical rectangle, in
combination with the horizontal rectangle with information of the program
content. Ans. 2 (citing Moshiri Fig. 4C); see Final Act. 2 (citing Moshiri
Fig. 4C) ("[A]ll selection portions shown in Fig. 4C can be considered a part
of the 'banner'"). The Examiner finds the banner in Moshiri to be T-shaped.
Id. The Examiner explains that the shape of the banner in Moshiri would not
preclude a skilled artisan to modify the banner of Ahmad-Taylor/ Akhavan to
include the channel selector to simplify adding a favorite channel. We agree
with the Examiner. The description of the banner in Akhavan noted by
Appellants does not limit a banner to have more content or features than
information of the program being displayed or to have a particular shape.
See App. Br. 5 (citing Akhavan i-f 6); Reply Br. 2; see Akhavan i-f 6 ("The
information banner is generally limited to a single program"). The
Examiner further finds the user selects the favorite channel selector element
(406) which brings up another screen. Ans. 3 (citing Moshiri i-f 37); Moshiri
i-f 37 ("[B]y pointing and clicking on ... the heart symbol illustrated with
[the favorite channel selector] tab 406, a user can be provided with another
screen which allows the currently viewed channel to be added to the list of
favorites"). Appellants reply that the Examiner admits selection of the
favorite channel selector "element 406 brings up another screen that can
5
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
subsequently be manipulated by a user to add something to a favorite list."
Reply Br. 2. We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner explains that
selecting the favorite channel selector element ( 406), with no additional user
actions, automatically adds the currently displayed channel to the favorites
list. Ans. 3. The additional screen, however, does allow the user "editing of
the favorites list to be performed." Moshiri i-f 37. The Examiner responds
that favorite channel selector element argued by Appellants is a completely
different interface. Ans. 3 (citing Moshiri Fig. 6U)); App. Br. 6 (citing
Moshiri Figs. 6(a), 6U)). We agree with the Examiner. The "FAVORITES"
icon ( 640) in Moshiri is described in an embodiment related to parental
controls and allows a user to select explicitly listed channels to be added to a
favorites list. Moshiri i-f 43, Figs. 6(a), 6U)). It follows Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 26, Appellants argue that Moreau and Official Notice
do not teach "the menu allowing a user to navigate through a first number of
channels while displaying only a second number of channels at a time, the
second number being less than the first number," as recited. App. Br. 7.
Appellants contend Moreau does not teach banners. Id. Appellants further
assert there is no suggestion to combine Moreau with the other references
except through hindsight. Id. Appellants challenge the Examiner's use of
Official Notice to teach a second number of channels being displayed at a
time being less than a first number of channels that can be navigated. Id. at
8. Appellants argue that this limitation is not well known and not "capable
of instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute." Id.
(quoting Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.03).
6
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Moreau
teaches a banner. Ans. 4 (citing Moreau Figs. 3-5). Appellants reply that
the banner in Moreau provides less detailed information than an electronic
programming guide (EPG) grid display. Reply Br. 3. Appellants assert the
banner in Moreau is outside the scope of the banner described in Akhavan
which contains information more detailed than an EPG grid display. Reply
Br. 3 (citing Akhavan i-f 6). We disagree with Appellants. Akhavan states
"[i]nformation banners generally consist of a panel which contains more
detailed programming guide information than contained in the EPG grid."
Akhavan i-f 6. Akhavan's description of banners does not preclude banners
with less detailed information than an EPG grid. Appellants do not rebut the
Examiner's findings of motivation to combine Moreau and Official Notice
with Ahmad-Taylor and Akhavan. Final Act. 9; Ans. 5. The Examiner
relies on Moreau to teach scrolling through displayed channels. Ans. 5
(citing Moreau Fig. 5). The Examiner explains that Official Notice was
taken to teach scrolling through additional channels, not displayed, was well
known. Ans. 5. Nevertheless, the Examiner responds to Appellants'
challenge to Official Notice by citing to Coleman as evidence that "a banner
allowing a user to navigate through a first number of channels while
displaying only a second number of channels at a time, the second number
being less than the first number" is known in the art. Ans. 5 (citing Coleman
Fig. 6, col. 19, 1. 39- col. 20, 1. 10, and col. 22, 11. 29-33). Appellants reply
that Coleman is not used in a formal statement of rejection. Reply Br. 3.
We have included Coleman in the statement of rejection for claims 26 and
30 in this decision. Dec. 3. Appellants additionally reply that no suggestion
to use Coleman is provided. Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellants.
7
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
The motivation the Examiner relies upon for Official Notice is applicable to
Coleman because they are relied upon to teach the same limitation. Final
Act. 9; Ans. 5. Appellants assert Coleman could have been produced earlier
in the prosecution. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner relies upon Official Notice
for the first time in the Final Office Action necessitated by Appellants'
amendment. Final Act. 11. Because the Examiner cites to Coleman as an
evidentiary reference in response to Appellants' challenge to Official Notice
(Reply Br. 3--4), the addition of Coleman to the rejection does not result in a
new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03 D.
Nevertheless, Appellants are reminded that concerns about the timeliness of
evidence relied upon for the Examiner's rejection are petitionable-not
appealable-matters and are, therefore, not before us. See MPEP § 1201
("The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the
Director on petition ... "). Appellants contend Coleman does not teach
unshown channels are also scrolled through. Reply Br. 4 (citing Coleman
Fig. 6). We agree with the Examiner that Coleman teaches navigating
through more channels than those displayed. Ans. 5; see Coleman col. 22,
11. 29-33, Figs. 6, 10. Figure 6 in Coleman displays three channels, but the
user can scroll through many more including the six channels displayed in
Figure 10. Coleman Figs. 6, 10. It follows Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 26.
Regarding the rejections of claims 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 27-30,
because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claims 15 and 26, claims 1 7, 19, 20,
8
Appeal2015-005724
Application 13/015,429
22, 24, and 27-30 fall therewith for the same reasons set forth above. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24,
and 26-30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9