Ex Parte Beeson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13280171 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/280,171 10/24/2011
20991 7590 08/15/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles W. Beeson
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.
PD-211052 4788
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TIENM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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 CHARLES W. BEESON, EARL J. BONOVICH,
SHANNON A. KALLIN, and ERIN K. NELSON 1
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 13-18, 21, and 24. Claims 1-12, 19, 20, 22-23, and 25-
30 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose a screen device having a touch screen that forms a
tune command in response to a gesture on the touch screen and
1 Appellants identify The DIRECTV Group, Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
communicates the tune command to a receiving device. The receiving
device is tuned to receive and display a channel corresponding to streamed
content in response to the tune command. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 13~ reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
13. A method comprising:
displaying streamed content having an identifier
associated therewith in a window of a media player, wherein
the window is displayed on a screen device and displays video
images of the streamed content for a selected channel;
receiving a swipe gesture in the window while the screen
device is displaying the streamed content of the selected
channel in the window;
via the media player, forming a record command signal
comprising the identifier and a receiving device identifier in
response to the swipe gesture;
communicating the record command signal to a receiving
device;
tuning a tuner in the receiving device to receive the
streamed content of the selected channel in response to the
record command signal; and
storing the streamed content in the receiving device.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 13, 14, 16-18, 21, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 2010/0333135
2
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
Al; Dec. 30, 2010) and Poulidis et al. (US 2012/0062471 Al; Mar. 15,
2012). Final Act. 9-15.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lau, Poulidis, and Reisman (US 2003/022990 Al; Dec.
11, 2003). Final Act. 21-22.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the Specification fails to provide
written description support for the claim 13 recitation of "forming a record
command signal ... in response to the swipe gesture"?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lau and
Poulidis teaches or suggests "tuning a tuner in the receiving device to
receive the streamed content of the selected channel in response to the
record command signal; and storing the streamed content in the receiving
device," as recited in claim 13?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 112,first paragraph-Claims 13-16
In rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner acknowledges that the Specification discusses a record
command-"but not with a swipe gesture." Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds the Specification "describes forming a tune command, not a
3
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
record command, in response to a swipe gesture." Ans. 2 (citing Spec.
i-fi-f 112-14). The Examiner further finds the Specification provides
examples of the use of a record button (Ans. 3 (citing Spec. Figs. 6, 18, and
i-fi-1 81, 98)), but that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize a
swipe gesture used to select a button" (Ans. 3).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in the Specification
"various gestures are described including swipe gestures." App. Br. 5
(citing Spec. i1 69). Appellants further argue that the Specification discloses
"using one or more of the various gestures such as the swipe gestures
described above to perform a recording selection." App. Br. 6 (citing Spec.
i-fi-f 112-14). And, Appellants submit that the Specification "provides an
example of a function or task that may be performed to communicate a tune
signal to a set top box" (Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. i169)) in response to a
swipe gesture, but that "swipe gestures may be used to perform other
functions and/or tasks" (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)).
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. The Specification repeatedly
describes using a swipe gesture to generate a tune command. See Spec. i1 69
("a touch followed by an upward swipe motion on the screen display may
communicate a tune signal"), i-f l 04 ("a second gesture comprising a
movement in an upward direction ... causes the second screen device to
generate a tune command"), and i-f l 09 (a gesture for which tuning is desired
"may correspond to touching an area of the tough screen ... for a
predetermined amount of time and then generating an upward motion").
However, the Specification discloses the use of a button-rather than a
swipe gesture-to generate a record command. See id. Figs. 6, 18, i1 81
("record button 616 may initiate a recording sequence"), i1 98 ("[b ]y
4
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
selecting the record button 1820, recording the content in the set top box ...
may be provided").
The Specification alludes to the use of non-swipe gestures to generate
a tune command or to a swipe gesture failing to generate a tune command.
See id. i-f 69 ("a touch followed by an upward swipe motion the screen
display may communicate a tune signal to the set top box" (emphasis
added)). However, this disclosure falls short of disclosing that "swipe
gestures may be used to perform other functions or tasks," as Appellants
contend. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
For these reasons, an artisan of ordinary skill would not have been
reasonably apprised that Appellants had possession of the invention of claim
13 with the "forming a record command signal ... in response to the swipe
gesture" recitation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
Specification fails to provide written description support for the disputed
recitation of claim 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 13, and of claims 14--16, which have the
disputed recitation and are similarly rejected.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)-Claims 13-18, 21, and 24
In rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Lau' s execution of a record command on an appropriate device to record and
store programs teaches or suggests "tuning a tuner in the receiving device to
receive the streamed content of the selected channel in response to the
record command signal; and storing the streamed content in the receiving
device," as recited in claim 13. Final Act. 10-11 (citing, e.g., Lau i-fi-194,
147, and 151). In particular, the Examiner finds that Lau-by incorporating
5
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
Ellis et al. (US 8,046,801 B2; Oct. 25, 2011) by reference-teaches or
suggests a process for tuning to a "specified channel in order to receive the
appropriate content stream (program) before beginning to store the content
(i.e., recording)." Ans. 7 (citing Lau i-f 68; Ellis Fig. 19, col. 27, 11. 13-39).
The Examiner relies on the Poulidis disclosure of a swipe gesture to teach or
suggest generating the record command in response to a swipe gesture.
Final Act. 11 (citing Poulidis i-f 37, Fig. 3).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Lau merely discloses
sending commands from wireless communication device 406 to user
equipment 402 where "[ e Jach of the commands is associated with a
respective task, such as a power on/off task, a channel change task, a
playback task, and a record task." App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that "[i]n
order to perform multiple tasks, multiple commands are generated" in Lau.
Id. Appellants further argue that Poulidis fails to cure the alleged deficiency
because Poulidis merely discloses a swipe gesture "used as a single
command to view a program." Id.; see also Reply Br. 7 (citing Poulidis
,-r,-r 41--4 2).
Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's reliance
on Ellis to teach or suggest responding to a record command by tuning to
receive the selected content before storing the content. Rather, Appellants
merely argue that the Examiner's use of Ellis is irrelevant because
"[n]owhere in Ellis is a gesture and/or performing a single swipe gesture to
perform multiple tasks including tuning a receiving device to receive
streamed content of a selected channel and storing (or recording) the
streamed content disclosed." Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner relies on
the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Ellis (as incorporated by
6
Appeal2014-005305
Application 13/280,171
Lau), Lau, and Poulidis to teach or suggest the formation of a record
command (as taught or suggested by Lau), in response to a swipe gesture (as
taught or suggested by Poulidis ), to tune a receiver and store streamed
content (as taught or suggested by Lau and Ellis). Appellants' arguments do
not show error in the Examiner's reliance on these combined teachings and
suggestions. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Lau (including Ellis) and Poulidis teaches or suggests "tuning a tuner in the
receiving device to receive the streamed content of the selected channel in
response to the record command signal; and storing the streamed content in
the receiving device," as recited in claim 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 13. Appellants make similar unpersuasive arguments with respect
to claims 14--18, 21, and 24. App. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 14--18, 21, and 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-18, 21, and
24.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7