Ex Parte Gildred

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

10906716 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

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