Ex Parte HaileyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 8, 201613639978 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016) 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. 13/639,978 10/08/2012 James Edwin Hailey PU100104 7572 24498 7590 12/12/2016 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com russell. smith @ technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES EDWIN HAILEY Appeal 2015-007721 Application 13/639,978 Technology Center 2400 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20. See Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-007721 Application 13/639,978 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed “to selectively including programs in a listing of programs available through a digital video recorder (DVR).” Spec. 1:7—8. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. In a digital video recorder (DVR), a method comprising: receiving a selection of a program available through the DVR; tagging the received selected program; and selectively including the tagged program in a listing of programs available through the DVR. References and Rejections The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Nakano US 2002/0162105 A1 Oct. 31,2002 Kamen US 2003/0014750 A1 Jan. 16,2003 Ellis US 2014/0040942 A1 Feb. 6,2014 Claims 1—9 and 13—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamen. Final Act. 3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamen and Nakano. Final Act. 8. Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamen and Ellis. Final Act. 9. 2 Appeal 2015-007721 Application 13/639,978 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not separately argue claims 1—9 and 13—18. See Br. 3—5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, adding the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner erred, because “Kamen clearly fails to disclose or suggest at least the features of: ‘tagging the received selected program’ and ‘selectively including the tagged program in a listing of programs available through the DVR’, as recited by independent claim 1.” Br. 5. Particularly, Appellant contends “[njowhere does Kamen disclose or suggest that the listing of available recorded programs be modified or adjusted” (id.), as instead, “[i]n Kamen, ... ah recorded program listings (which are ostensibly available for viewing by ah users depending on individual access level) appear in every program listing.” Id. at 4. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kamen discloses the limitations recited by claim 1. First, we note Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for not being responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds Kamen discloses a “window 100[, which] meets the claimed selectively including the tagged program in a listing of programs available through the DVR.” Final Act. 4 (citing Kamen Figs. 7, 14; 128). Kamen’s “window 100” can display a “personalized directory” of tagged content, such as a listing of “My Shows,” and in situations where “multiple users of the recording application may each have their own directory, the window name may be personalized, such as ‘Margaret’s Shows.’” Kamen 128. 3 Appeal 2015-007721 Application 13/639,978 Appellant recites the specific programs listed in Kamen’s Figures (see Br. 4, referring to Kamen Figs. 1—3, 11), but has not provided arguments or evidence to persuade us that Kamen’s personalized directories are precluded by the claimed “selectively including the tagged program in a listing of programs available through the DVR.” For at least this reason, we are not persuaded the rejection is in error. Second, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for not being commensurate with the scope of the claim. For example, Appellant’s contentions regarding Kamen displaying “ah recorded program listings” do not refer to limitations appearing in claim 1. See Br. 4. Rather, claim 1 recites “tagging” a program, and “selectively including the tagged program in a listing of programs available through the DVR.” We agree with the Examiner that Kamen discloses the limitations of claim 1 because Kamen discloses “tagging” as claimed, by selecting content to be recorded (see Kamen Figs. 4, 10, showing “USER SELECTS CONTENT TO BE RECORDED”); Kamen also discloses “selectively including” as claimed, by displaying a list of the selected content to be recorded (see Kamen Figs. 1, 3, 11, showing the listing of “RECORDINGS”). See Ans. 12—13; see also Spec. 3:14^4:2. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kamen anticipates the limitations of independent claim 1. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 13—18. See Ans. 10—13. Appellant argues the other cited references do not remedy the deficiencies of Kamen in the rejections of dependent claims 10-12, 19, and 20; however, the Examiner relies on the findings in Kamen discussed above 4 Appeal 2015-007721 Application 13/639,978 for the limitations inherited by these dependent claims. See Br. 5—6; Ans. 13.1 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10-12, 19, and 20 for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 1 Separately, and not relied upon for this decision, we note Ellis also discloses the “selectively including” limitation of claim 1, as Ellis describes “niche hubs” for program listings, and hiding or showing programs. See Final Act. 10-11; Ellis Tflf 198, 209, 212; Fig. 48, hide option 594. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation