Ex Parte Gossweiler III et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201411618659 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte RICHARD CARL GOSSWEILER, III, MARISA BAUER, 7 JOHN WAYNE BLACKBURN, DAVID A. BROWN, 8 NEHA GUPTA, TIMOTHY DHARMA HEILMAN, 9 MANISH GORDHAN PATEL, DAVID SCOTT REISS, 10 MEHRAN SAHAMI, MARICIA SCOTT, 11 THOMAS H. TAYLOR, ALICE TULL, 12 MARK WAGNER, LUCY CONGYUN ZHANG, 13 and DANIEL JOHN ZIGMOND 14 ___________ 15 16 Appeal 2011-010825 17 Application 11/618,659 18 Technology Center 2100 19 ___________ 20 21 22 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 23 NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. 24 25 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 26 27 28 DECISION ON APPEAL29 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 Richard Carl Gossweiler, III, Marisa Bauer, John Wayne Blackburn, 2 David A. Brown, Neha Gupta, Timothy Dharma Heilman, Manish Gordhan 3 Patel, David Scott Reiss, Mehran Sahami, Maricia Scott, Thomas H. Taylor, 4 Alice Tull, Mark Wagner, Lucy Congyun Zhang, and Daniel John Zigmond 5 (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 6 1-28, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have 7 jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 8 The Appellants invented a way of displaying information by 9 presenting a subset of a collection of data on a first grid having a first axis 10 corresponding to units of time and a second axis (Spec., para. 0004). 11 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 12 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some 13 paragraphing added). 14 1. A method of displaying information at a client computer 15 including a processor and memory, comprising: 16 [1] displaying in a grid an initial set of events 17 from a collection of data, 18 the grid having a first axis corresponding to units of time 19 and a second axis, 20 the collection of data comprising data representing time-21 bounded events; 22 [2] sending a search query to a server system; 23 [3] receiving, in response to the search query, 24 a set of search results 25 corresponding to the search query, 26 the search results identifying events from the collection 27 of data; 28 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December 7, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 21, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 2, 2011). Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 3 [4] displaying, 1 on the client computer, 2 the set of search results to a user; 3 and 4 [5] simultaneously, 5 while displaying the set of search results, 6 displaying in the grid an updated set of the events, 7 the updated set of events selected 8 so as to include at least one of the events identified 9 by the search results. 10 11 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 12 Billmaier US 2008/0104058 A1 May 1, 2008 13 Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by 14 Billmaier. 15 16 ISSUES 17 The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Billmaier describes 18 a system that displays a grid with search results. 19 20 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 21 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 22 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 23 Facts Related to the Prior Art 24 Billmaier 25 01. Billmaier is directed to search features in interactive media 26 guidance application systems. Billmaier, para. 0001. 27 02. Billmaier presents search results based on relevancy in an 28 interactive media guidance application. After performing a user-29 initiated or automatic search for media content, the interactive 30 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 4 media guidance application determines which of the hits are most 1 relevant to the user. This relevancy determination may be based 2 on personalization data derived by monitoring user interactions 3 with the interactive media guidance application, or from express 4 user media preference designations. The relevancy determination 5 may be made based on what other users selected from the results 6 of a similar search. Billmaier, para. 0004. 7 03. After determining which results are relevant to the user, the 8 guidance application then displays, or visually identifies, the 9 relevant items. This may be accomplished by, for example, 10 changing the color of the relevant results or highlighting or 11 marking the relevant results. Billmaier, para. 0005. 12 04. The guidance application determines relevancy based on a 13 relevancy threshold. Billmaier, para. 0006. 14 05. Billmaier may employ a varying relevancy threshold. The 15 threshold may vary, for example, based on the number of hits 16 meeting the threshold. When the number of hits meeting the 17 relevancy threshold is below a minimum number, the guidance 18 application incrementally lowers the relevancy threshold until the 19 minimum number of relevant hits is met. The threshold may be 20 varied by day part. Billmaier, para. 0007. 21 06. The search criteria may be derived using any suitable approach. 22 In some embodiments, for example, the interactive media 23 guidance application receives the criteria from user input. In other 24 embodiments, the interactive media guidance application 25 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 5 generates the criteria from user personalization data. Billmaier, 1 para. 0008. 2 07. The interactive media guidance application may display the 3 matching, relevant results using any suitable approach. For 4 example, the results may be represented as text, graphics, or 5 video, and may be displayed in a list or a mosaic. The guide may 6 sort results by relevance. Billmaier, para. 0009. 7 08. The guide may change the display characteristics of the relevant 8 results depending on the number of relevant results, the relevancy 9 threshold itself, or other suitable factors. The display 10 characteristics may also be varied by day part. Billmaier, para. 11 0010. 12 09. Figure 1 shows an illustrative grid program listings display 13 arranged by time and channel that also enables access to different 14 types of media content in a single display. The display may 15 include a grid with: (1) a column of channel/media type 16 identifiers, where each channel/media type identifier (which is a 17 cell in the column) identifies a different channel or media type 18 available; and (2) a row of time identifiers, where each time 19 identifier (which is a cell in the row) identifies a time block of 20 programming. The grid also includes cells of program listings, 21 where each listing provides the title of the program provided on 22 the listing's associated channel and time. With a user input 23 device, a user can select program listings by moving a highlight 24 region. Information relating to the program listing selected by the 25 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 6 highlight region may be provided in a program information 1 region. Billmaier, para. 0029. 2 10. An illustrative interactive media guidance application display is 3 shown in Figure 5a. Each module of display 500 may provide 4 access to different types of media content in different 5 arrangements. However, the multiple modules of display provide 6 the user with ready access to these different types of media in a 7 single unified display screen. Module display types include, for 8 example, Grid Guide, Program Information, Suggested 9 Programming, Watch List, Purchased VOD, Recorded Programs, 10 Programs Scheduled to Record, Most Popular/Highest Rated lists, 11 Search, Program/Movie Browser, Editorial Review, Video 12 Previews, TV Planner, or any other suitable guidance application 13 features. Only a limited number of modules are simultaneously 14 provided within a display screen due to space constraints. For 15 example, on the display of Figure 5a, "Suggested Programming" 16 module, "Top On Demand" module, "Grid guide" module, and 17 "My Video Vault" module are presented to the users. Billmaier, 18 para. 0044. 19 11. In addition to providing personalized guidance for media content 20 from a myriad of media sources and in a myriad of combinations, 21 the display is also able to present media listings in a variety of 22 display arrangements that present listings for media content in a 23 video mosaic display or is organized as a video mosaic display in 24 a multi-column or single-column display fashion. Billmaier, para. 25 0046. 26 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 7 12. The quickview display of Figure 5a is presented by the guidance 1 application, which may provide other displays, such as Guide, 2 Recorded TV, On Demand, Search, etc. Guide tab displays 3 modules having grid guides for personalized media content 4 listings. Billmaier, para. 0047. 5 13. In quickview mode, the guidance application displays abridged 6 versions of the abovementioned modules whose complete listings 7 are viewable from one or more of the other tabs. For example, the 8 quickview display of Figure 5a includes a portion of the 9 "Suggested Programming" module. Quickview further includes a 10 portion of the "Top On Demand" module and a portion of the "My 11 Video Vault" module, whose complete listings may be selectable 12 from On Demand tab and Recorded TV tab, respectively. The 13 media guidance application selects media for the quickview 14 modules by searching for matching content based on search 15 criteria, and determining the media content that is most relevant 16 to the user. Billmaier, para. 0048. 17 14. Comparing Figures 5a and 5b will illustrate how the interactive 18 media guidance application may intelligently select relevant 19 search results, change display arrangements, and change which 20 modules are included in a guidance display based on the relevant 21 results. The media guidance application generated the Suggested 22 Programming module by searching the guidance database for 23 content on now, on next, and on later. After finding all matching 24 hits (the search criteria being the relevant time slots), the 25 application filters the hits to display only those meeting the 26 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 8 relevancy threshold. In this example, the Suggested 1 Programming module has room for only the most relevant two hits 2 for each time slot. Accordingly only these hits are selected for 3 display. The Program grid module, however, can fit more hits in 4 the space allotted, and it includes the most relevant four hits for 5 the current time slot (in this example, the grid also shows past 6 programs). Billmaier, para. 0049. 7 15. In the example of Figure 5b, the user and day part have changed 8 and the relevancy determination yields a different set of relevant 9 results. In this example, there are no more than three relevant 10 results for the "Suggested Programming." The guide has also 11 changed which modules are displayed; the program grid has been 12 omitted because, in this example, there are no relevant current 13 programs to display. In addition, the "Suggested Programming" 14 module has been resized to accommodate the fewer results. It 15 could have been resized larger and grid moved further down, if 16 the number of relevant results required it. Billmaier, para. 0050. 17 16. The guidance application may obtain search criteria for the 18 quickview modules using any suitable approach. For example, the 19 guidance application may generate the search criteria based on 20 user personalization data that was derived from user interactions 21 or supplied by the user. In other approaches, the guidance 22 application may receive search criteria from the user. Figure 6 23 shows an illustrative popup that the interactive media guidance 24 application may display in response to a user indicating a desire to 25 supply search criteria for a module. In response to the user 26 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 9 entering the search criteria, the guidance application may populate 1 the module with the relevant results. Figure 7 is an example of the 2 "Top on Demand" module being populated with relevant on-3 demand results based on the user entering a keyword "Lord" (if 4 the relevancy intelligence of the present invention were not used, 5 the module would have had the results shown in Figure 3a). The 6 example of Figure 7 also shows how the "Top on Demand" 7 module has been resized based on the number of relevant hits. 8 Billmaier, para. 0052. 9 10 ANALYSIS 11 As to claim 1, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that 12 (1) the grid is not displayed in Billmaier, Figure 5b (App. Br. 18); 13 (2) overlap between modules may not always occur (id.); (3) only a single 14 module is updated with search results (id.); and (4) search results are only 15 returned for the first module (id. at 19). These last two arguments are 16 essentially the same as those made in the Reply Brief, page 7. 17 Billmaier explicitly describes searching and retrieving viewing events. 18 FF 02-06 and 13-16. This is not under contention. Appellants contend that 19 the results do not simultaneously present the results in two manners, one of 20 which is in the form of a grid, as recited in claim 1, limitation [5]. 21 Billmaier shows an exemplary search results page in its Figure 5b. 22 While we agree with Appellants that this Figure 5b clearly does not include 23 a grid, the accompanying text at paragraph 50 equally clearly states this is 24 only because there were no events matching the search criteria for the 25 current time frame. That same paragraph also states the grid would have 26 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 10 been included if the search results warranted it. This same paragraph also 1 states that the relevancy determination yields a different set of relevant 2 results. In this example, there are no more than three relevant results for the 3 Suggested Programming. FF 15. 4 Thus, Billmaier states that the search results are simultaneously 5 presented in two manners, one of which is in the form of a grid, when search 6 results are within the current time frame. As claim 1 does not narrow the 7 criteria for inclusion in its grid, Billmaier’s inclusion only for results in the 8 current time frame is within the scope of claim 1. 9 As to claim 2, reciting a second search, we are not persuaded by the 10 Appellants’ argument that Billmaier fails to describe such a second search. 11 App. Br. 20. Although claim 2 recites “in accordance with a user selected 12 event in the presented set of search results, updating the events displayed in 13 the grid so as to present a new set of events that are selected so as to include 14 the user selected event,” the claim does not narrow the manner of such 15 “accordance,” and does not even require the second search to take the first 16 search results as its domain. Also, claim 2 does not limit the manner in 17 which events are user selected. Thus, performing a second search simply 18 based on criteria that take into account the user selected event is within the 19 scope of claim 2. Thus, claim 2 is little more than performing a second 20 search after a user has viewed the results from a first search. This is simply 21 another search as described by Billmaier. 22 As to claims 3 and 5, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ 23 argument that Billmaier fails to describe highlighting search results. 24 Billmaier describes using techniques such as highlighting or marking 25 relevant items. FF 03. 26 Appeal 2011-010825 Application 11/618,659 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated 2 by Billmaier is proper. 3 4 DECISION 5 The rejection of claims 1-28 is affirmed. 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 7 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 8 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 9 10 AFFIRMED 11 12 13 14 hh 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation