Ex Parte Bontempi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2013

10852361 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAYMOND C. BONTEMPI
and ROBERT H. FOLK
____________________

Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7 and 12-15.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Claims 8-11 and 16-23 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361

2
Appellants invented a system and method for providing scheduled live
off-disk recording of content for DVR (digital video recorder) devices. Spec.
1-2.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of scheduling the storage of selected content in
a LOD buffer in a DVR device, said method comprising:
automatically navigating to selected content at a
scheduled broadcast time by tuning to a channel providing the
selected content;
storing said selected content in a temporary buffer, said
temporary buffer being configured to continuously store an
updated stream of content most recently received on a current
channel;
receiving an indication regarding the temporary buffer;
and
deleting at least a portion of the selected content stored in
the temporary buffer in response to the indication regarding the
temporary buffer.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Matoba (US 2002/0097986 A1, Jul. 25,
2002). Ans. 3-5.2
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Matoba in view of West (US 6,971,121 B2, Nov.
29, 2005). Ans. 5-6.

2 Throughout this decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed May
14, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 9, 2010 for their
respective details.
Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361

3
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5-10.

Anticipation Rejection
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-15
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding that Matoba discloses a temporary buffer configured to continuously
store an updated stream of content most recently received on a current
channel, as recited in claims 1 and 12?
Appellants argue that Matoba does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. Br. 5-9. In particular, Appellants argue that
in Matoba, the temporary memory 71 does not automatically store any
content, but must be affirmatively activated by the user before buffering
commences (Br. 7-8). Appellants also contend that “Matoba makes no
mention of recording programs in the temporary memory 71 based on a
scheduled broadcast time.” Id.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
The Examiner found that Matoba describes a temporary memory for
continuously storing content. Ans. 4, 7-9. Matoba describes:
Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361

4
Temporary memory 71 comprises an FIFO memory or a
ring buffer for temporarily storing the video and audio data of
recorded programs. Permanent memory 72 stores those video
and audio data stored in temporary memory 71 which the user
has selected as data to be permanently stored. Temporary
memory 71 and permanent memory 72 may be present as being
physically or logically separated in a memory medium such as a
hard disk or the like. Recording controller 73 records new
programs one after another in temporary memory 71. For
example, recording controller 73 automatically records
broadcasts on given channels continuously for a predetermined
period of time or a predetermined number of days.

Matoba, ¶ [0110] (emphasis added).

That is, Matoba describes a “[t]emporary memory 71 [that] comprises
an FIFO memory or a ring buffer for temporarily storing the video and audio
data of recorded programs,” so that programs are recorded “one after another
in temporary memory 71,” thereby recording “automatically … on given
channels continuously.” Ans. 4, 7-9 (citing Matoba ¶ [0110]). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the temporary memory in Matoba corresponds
to the claimed temporary buffer. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ further argument that in Matoba
the temporary memory 71 does not automatically store any content, but must
be affirmatively activated by the user before buffering commences. Br. 8.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims, because
the claims are not limited to a device that automatically stores content
without user activation.
As to Appellants’ contention about “scheduled broadcast time,” the
Examiner finds that Matoba explicitly discloses “an EPG (Electronic
Program Guide) containing a list of information of programs to be broadcast
Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361

5
on channels.” Matoba, ¶[0082]. We agree with the Examiner that the EPG
“includes a plurality of programs that are scheduled to be broadcast” because
the EPG consists of broadcast start and end times and channel numbers of
broadcast programs. Ans. 8 (citing Matoba, ¶¶[0093]-[0094]).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Matoba describes the
disputed limitations of representative claims 1 and 12. Because claims 2, 3,
6, 7, and 13-15 are not argued separately, they fall together with claims 1
and 12 for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 6,
7, and 12-15.
Obviousness Rejection
Claims 4 and 5
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. Appellants present no separate
arguments directed to the patentability of claims 4 and 5. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5 for the reasons
discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Matoba teaches a temporary buffer that is configured to continuously
store an updated stream of content most recently received on a current
channel.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 12-15 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-012182
Application 10/852,361

6
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

msc