Ex Parte GildredDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201310906716 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/906,716 03/03/2005 John Taylor Gildred PR 1811.01 US 3716 31883 7590 09/27/2013 DVA/PIONEER RESEARCH CENTER USA, INC. 2265 E. 220TH STREET LONG BEACH, CA 90810 EXAMINER ALATA, YASSIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 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 JOHN TAYLOR GILDRED ____________ Appeal 2011-004581 Application 10/906,716 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004581 Application 10/906,716 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-21, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to filtering electronic television program guides based on television channel accessibility (see Spec. ¶¶ 4 and 15). Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: retrieving electronic program guide (EPG) information from an EPG provider; and filtering the EPG information to retain program information related to programs delivered by a content delivery provider to a subscriber, the filtering of EPG information being performed by extracting channel identifier from a first data structure, which includes a plurality of channel identifiers, and storing the filtered information in a second data structure, the second data structure being updated periodically, the content delivery provider being different from the EPG provider and the filtered information being displayed on a display. 1 In light of our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejections, we do not analyze whether Appellant’s claims are drawn to non-statutory subject matter. While Appellant amended its claims during prosecution in response to the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, those claim amendments preceded the decisions in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010) and CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appeal 2011-004581 Application 10/906,716 3 The Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stone (U.S. 2002/0184650 A1; Dec. 5, 2002), Hallenbeck (U.S. 5,038,211; Aug. 6, 1991), and the ATSC Standard (ATSC Recommended Practice: Program and System Information Protocol Implementation Guidelines for Broadcasters, Advanced Television Systems Committee, Doc. A/69, June 25, 2002). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s assertions. In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellant, the Examiner presents sufficient findings and responses (Ans. 9-16). We agree with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We specifically agree with the Examiner that the combination of the Stone, Hallenbeck, and ATSC references, all of which involve television program channel information, teaches or suggests a first data structure and second data structure as claimed in all of the pending claims (Ans. 4, 10-12, 16). The term data structure is not defined in the claims, but is used interchangeably in the Specification and throughout Appellant’s briefs with database or data storage media. See Spec. 13 (“The extract channel ID module 620 extracts data (i.e., the channel IDs) from the first data structure 610 and stores the data in the second data structure 630”); App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 1, 4; (e.g., “Hallenbeck discloses only a single data structure . . . . Hallenbeck discloses only a single database”)). Under the broadest Appeal 2011-004581 Application 10/906,716 4 reasonable interpretation of the claims, the Examiner has found that the combination of Stone, Hallenbeck, and ATSC teaches or suggests storing data in two data structures. To the extent that Appellant appears to be arguing against the references individually (e.g., App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 1- 2), nonobviousness cannot be shown by so doing, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981). We also agree with the Examiner’s analysis of independent claim 13. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed electronic program guide (EPG) module and the enhanced EPG module, the Stone and Hallenbeck references teach or suggest the claimed modules. Again, to the extent that Appellant appears to be arguing nonobviousness by attacking the references individually (e.g., App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5), such argument is improper, Keller, 642 F.2d 413. Appellant does not present any specific and separate arguments for the dependent claims and relies on the same reasons stated for the patentability of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 (see App. Br. 7, 13), and thus, the dependent claims fall with their base claim. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21. Appeal 2011-004581 Application 10/906,716 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 is affirmed. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation