Ex Parte Barry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12215263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/215,263 06/26/2008
102824 7590 02/29/2016
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP
162 N. WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith Barry
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.
SONY-63100 5062
EXAMINER
LE, RONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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
Exparte KEITH BARRY, RAFAEL CALDERON, JORGE HERNANDEZ,
DAN JASTORFF, and ROLANDO ZORRILLA
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JON M. JURGOV AN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants indicate the Real Parties in Interest are Sony Corporation and
Sony Electronics, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
The claimed invention relates to implementing a personal information
mode in an electronic device. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for implementing a personal information mode in an
electronic device, comprising:
information data that is selectably accessed from at least one
information source;
a display coupled to said electronic device for displaying said
information data on a personal information interface to a system user, said
information data including personal information that has been explicitly
specified by said system user; and
a personal information module of said electronic device that
automatically accesses and displays said personal information to said system
user on said personal information interface, said system user initially
performing a single comprehensive configuration procedure upon said
personal information module to selectively configure any supported primary
operating characteristics of said personal information interface in said
personal information mode, said system user specifying all display
appearance attributes and said primary operating characteristics for said
personal information interface during said single comprehensive
configuration procedure.
2
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Pendakur US 2004/0073924 Al Apr. 15, 2004
Allen US 2004/0078814 Al Apr. 22, 2004
Cao US 6, 782,550 B 1 Aug.24,2004
Swix US 2006/0031882 Al Feb.9,2006
Barrett US 2007/0143793 Al June 21, 2007
Biniak US 2008/0083003 Al Apr. 3, 2008
Gossweiler US 2008/0276279 Al Nov. 6, 2008
Jerding US 2009/0276808 Al Nov. 5, 2009
Rejections
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gossweiler, Allen, and Pendakur.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gossweiler, Allen, Pendakur, and Swix.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gossweiler, Allen, Pendakur, Biniak, Jerding, and Cao.
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gossweiler, Allen, Pendakur, and Barrett.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
3
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1 because: A) Gossweiler fails to teach accessing and displaying
"information data." App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6; B) Gossweiler fails to teach a
smart television that actively manages and controls each aspect of the
personal information mode. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6, 7; C) Gossweiler does
not teach any sort of "comprehensive configuration procedure." App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 7; D) Gossweiler fails to teach "automatically" identifying and
providing "personal information that has been explicitly specified by said
system user." App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7; E) Allen is not analogous to the
claimed invention. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8; and F) Pendakur's creating and
utilizing a "user profile" to schedule broadcasts is not analogous to the
claimed "single comprehensive configuration procedure." App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 8, 9. Appellants make substantially similar arguments with
respect to independent claim 20. See App. Br. 17-21; Reply Br. 10-14. We
discuss each of these issues below.
A) Accessing and displaying information data
Appellants argue Gossweiler teaches a device where users manually
download individual "portable program modules" to a computer or a set top
box for reformatting and displaying on a passive television device. App. Br.
13. Appellants also argue that Gossweiler explicitly teaches that the
portable program modules are software. Id. Appellants contend, therefore,
4
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
that Gossweiler fails to teach accessing and displaying "information data,"
as claimed. Id. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Gossweiler teaches
displaying a user interface like a personalized Google desktop
(iGoogle) or other customized homepages (personal information
interface) using a content manager server 3 22 or 3 5 8 consisting
of user data 338 and the portable program module 337 and other
content information, source information which communicates
with (personal information mode, and information data that is
selectable accessed from at least one information source,
information data including personal information that has been
explicitly specified by system user) on a television display
coupled to a set top box (a display coupled to electronic device
for displaying personal information interface to a system
user) ....
Ans. 4 (citing Gossweiler, Figs. 3B, 3C; i-fi-15, 8, 90, 93, 95, 98, 104, 108,
118, and 121).
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Gossweiler teaches widgets
(portable program modules) that operate similarly to iGoogle homepages,
which display personally selected widgets (personal information module),
and also automatically selected content recommendations based on user
profiles and past viewing history. Ans. 5 (citing Gossweiler, Figs. 1 B, 7;
,-r,-r 44--46, 98-99).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded there was error in the Examiner's
finding that Gossweiler discloses accessing and displaying information data.
B) Smart television/personal information module
Appellants argue that Gossweiler fails to teach a smart television that
actively manages and controls each aspect of the personal information mode,
as disclosed and claimed by Applicants. App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue
5
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
the television of Gossweiler is a passive device that merely displays
information provided by an intelligent server or a local computer device.
App. Br. 13, 14 (citing Gossweiler, Fig. 3B). In particular, Appellants
argue, the television set of Gossweiler does not include the "personal
information module," as disclosed and claimed by Applicants. App. Br. 14.
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, nor are the arguments responsive to the Examiner's findings. Claim 1
does not recite a "smart television that actively manages and controls each
aspect of the personal information mode". Contra App. Br. 13. Rather,
claim 1 recites: "[a] system for implementing a personal information mode
in an electronic device, [the system] comprising: information data ... a
display coupled to the electronic device . . . and a personal information
module ... that automatically accesses and displays said personal
information ... " Moreover, the Examiner cites to Allen, not Gossweiler, for
teaching the personal information module of claim 1. See Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, Appellants arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
C) Comprehensive configuration procedure
Appellants argue Gossweiler fails to teach any sort of "comprehensive
configuration procedure". App. Br. 14. Appellants argue, "Gossweiler is
limited to teaching a device user manually downloading individual portable
program modules on an individual basis." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection.
The Examiner cites to Allen and Pendakur, not Gossweiler, for teaching the
claimed "comprehensive configuration procedure." See Final Act. 10, 11.
Accordingly, Appellants arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
6
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
D) automatically identifying and providing personal
information
Appellants argue Gossweiler fails to teach "automatically" identifying
and providing "personal information that has been explicitly specified by
said system user." App. Br. 14. Appellants argue that Gossweiler is limited
only to sending "recommendations" and nowhere teaches providing the
actual required content (personal information) except when a content item is
manually selected/requested by a system user. Id. In addition, Appellants
argue, the recommendations of Gossweiler are selected based upon a "user
profile," not upon specific configuration data initially provided by the
system user. Id.
The Examiner finds Gossweiler teaches widgets (portable program
modules) which operate similarly to iGoogle homepages, which display
personally selected widgets (personal information module), and also
automatically selected content recommendations based on a user profile and
past viewing history. Ans. 5 (citing Gossweiler, Figs. lB, 7; i-fi-144--46, 98-
99). The Examiner also finds Allen teaches a timing setting of when to
display which ticker module on a television screen, which teaches
automatically accessing and displaying personal information to a system
user on a personal information interface. Id. (citing Allen, Fig. 15; i-fi-178-
83, 86). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill to combine Gossweiler and Allen to improve personalization,
convenience and other user specific benefits within their current service
provider. Ans. 6. We agree. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
7
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
E) Allen is not analogous to the claimed invention
Appellants argue Allen's teaching of customizing the appearance of a
series of modules of content is not analogous to the claimed "single
comprehensive configuration procedure" that is applied to a composite
integrated "personal information interface" that displays many different
types of "personal information." App. Br. 15.
The test for obviousness, however, is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references. Id. Each reference cited
by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill to modify Gossweiler by having a user perform a
comprehensive configuration procedure upon a personal information module
to selectively configure the primary operating characteristics, and all display
attributes as taught by Allen, in order to improve personalization,
convenience and other user specific benefits within their current service
provider. Ans. 6. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error.
F) Pendakur is not analogous to the "single
comprehensive configuration procedure"
Appellants argue that Pendakur's teaching of creating and utilizing a
user profile to schedule broadcasts is not analogous to the claimed "single
8
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
comprehensive configuration procedure." App. Br. 15 (citing Pendakur, i-fi-1
34--37). Appellants argue that Pendakur's use of "an on-line form
containing a few questions" would be insufficient for performing a
"comprehensive configuration" of any supported primary operating
characteristics. Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue that Pendakur
uses multiple stages to create its user profile rather than using a single
configuration procedure. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner finds Pendakur teaches customized broadcast
scheduling and content selection based on an aggregated user profile,
wherein the user 575 sets up an initial user profile 520 consisting of user
preferences by answering questions, which reads on the recited "user
initially performing a single comprehensive configuration procedure." Ans.
6 (citing Pendakur, i134).
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants' unsupported attorney
argument that answering a few questions would somehow be insufficient to
perform a comprehensive configuration fails to rebut the Examiner's finding
that Pendakur' s use of an initial user profile teaches a single comprehensive
configuration procedure. App. Br. 15. "Attorney's argument ... cannot
take the place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) (citation omitted). See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to
rebut a prima facie case). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner's finding was in error.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive and persuasive
arguments with respect to remaining claims 2-19, and 21. See App. Br. 21-
9
Appeal2014-003559
Application 12/215,263
25. Accordingly, \Ve sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
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
10