Ex Parte Douillet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13291075 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/291,075 11/07/2011
37123 7590 09/21/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ludovic Douillet
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.
7114-104088-US 9253
EXAMINER
MONTOYA,OSCHTAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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 LUDOVIC DOUILLET, KLAUS HOFRICHTER,
JENKE WU KUO, ARAN SADJA, and WILLIAM SCHUPP
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to enabling electronic program guide
data and metadata input from multiple service providers. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A computer-implemented method for utilizing electronic
program guide data and metadata from multiple service sources,
compnsmg:
receiving input comprising at least one electronic program
guide data and metadata from a plurality of content providers
compnsmg at least a broadcaster and an internet content
provider;
combining the input in a common gateway server;
generating a unified interface at the common gateway
server, based on the at least one electronic program guide and the
metadata from the broadcaster and internet content provider, for
at least one consumer electronics device; and
integrating the unified interface with an internet
audio/video explorer service;
wherein the unified interface comprises an application
program interface common to a plurality of consumer electronic
device platforms; and
wherein the common gateway server provides interfaces
to a plurality of consumer electronic devices over an internet
connection.
The Rejections
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
2
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Khivesara (US 2009/0030931 Al; Jan. 29, 2009)
and Walter (US 2012/0005709 Al; Jan. 5, 2012).
Claims 3, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Khivesara, Walter, and Babu (US 2004/0003396 Al; Jan. 1, 2004).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Khivesara,
Walter, and Hong (US 2010/0088721 Al; Apr. 8, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
The Examiner finds independent claim 20 indefinite because the
claimed means for receiving, means for combining, and means for
generating are means-plus-function limitations and "the written description
fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed
function." Final Act. 3. 2 Appellants identify paragraphs 41 and 44 of the
Specification as well as figures 2 and 3 as setting forth an algorithm for
performing the claimed functions of receiving, combining, and generating.
App. Br. 11-12.
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed means for receiving,
means for combining, and means for generating are means-plus-function
limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. We disagree with the
Examiner, however, that the Specification fails to disclose sufficient
structure corresponding to the claimed functions. Our reviewing court has
2 Claim 20 further recites "means for integrating;" however, the Examiner
does not contend this means-plus-function limitation lacks sufficient
structure in the Specification. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
held that for a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation
invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, a general purpose computer is
sufficient as the corresponding structure when performing a general
computing function. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, the Court held
"the claimed functions of 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing' ... can be
achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.
As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general
purpose processor that performs those functions." Id. Here, claim 20 recites
the functions of receiving, combining, and generating-functions similar to
those claimed in Katz. We are not persuaded, based on the record before us
that the claimed functions amount to more than "can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming." Id. Moreover,
even if the claimed functions require disclosure of a special purpose
processor, we agree with Appellants that paragraphs 41 and 44 of the
Specification together with figures 2 and 3 set forth sufficient algorithm for
performing the claimed functions of receiving, combining, and generating.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
Obviousness
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because the services in Walter's
"portal 202 and the merged EPG are not described to be displayed on the
same device, much less integrated in a 'unified interface."' App. Br. 14.
4
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
Appellants further contend, "Modifying the 'unified ESG' in Khivesara ...
to become a portal 202 'for managing services' would change the principle
of operation of the 'unified ESG. "' Id.; Reply Br. 4.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
First, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
teachings and suggestions of Walter because Appellants argue the references
individually. The Examiner correctly relies on Khivesara as teaching or
suggesting the claimed generating a unified interface at the common
gateway server, based on the at least one electronic program guide and the
metadata from the broadcaster and the internet content provider, for at least
one consumer electronics device. Final Act. 5 (citing Khivesara i-fi-1 48--49).
The Examiner further finds Walter's portal 202-which is accessible via a
URL and includes internet services, V oD (Video on Demand) catalog, and
DVR-as teaching or suggesting the claimed integrating the unified
interface with and internet audio/video explorer service. Ans. 3 (citing
Walter i124, fig. 2). The Examiner combines these teachings and articulates
a motivation to combine. Final Act. 5. Where, as here, a rejection is based
on a combination of references, one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, we are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
modifying Khivesara as proposed by the Examiner would destroy its
principle of operation. Khivesara "relates to a unified electronic service
5
Appeal2015-004626
Application 13/291,075
guide (ESG) that is displayed at a client device and is created by combining
service data acquired from multiple sources." Khivesara i-f 3. In the cited
portions, Khivesara describe a "browser application" that presents data to the
user about available content, including "video & music on demand 302A,
unicast cast TV & radio 302B, broadcast TV & radio 302C, datacast
applications 302D, side loaded content 302E, etc." Khivesara i-fi-148--49. In
light of Khivesara' s specific discussion of integrating data about internet
audio/video explorer services, we are not persuaded that modifying
Khivesara' s unified interface to include an internet audio/video explorer
service, as explicitly disclosed in Walter, would impermissibly alter
Khivesara's principle of operation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims 2-20.
App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 2-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 20 as indefinite.
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-20 as obvious.
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
6