Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12688595 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/688,595 01115/2010 SETH HILL
36738 7590 08/25/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200902796.02 3932
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SETH HILL and TRACY HO BARNES
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
Technology Center 2400
Before JON M. JURGOV AN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-16, and 18-21, all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an integrated user interface for
Internet-enabled television. (Spec. 1.) Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below
with the disputed limitations in italics, are exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. TV comprising:
display;
network interface;
processor communicating with a TV tuner and the network
interface and controlling presentation on the display;
computer readable storage medium local to the processor
and accessible to the processor, the processor executing logic to:
present a main user interface (UI) on the display, the main
UI having a layout established by a manufacturer of the TV and
including entries for respective content genre including video
and TV, wherein responsive to an entry associated with the video
genus being selected, the processor presents on the display a sub-
UI including at least one entry corresponding to an Internet video
provider and at least one entry corresponding to at least one video
file stored locally without being sourced through the network
interface, a video from the Internet being sourced through the
network interface for presentation on the display at least in part
responsive to selection of the entry corresponding to the Internet
video provider, a video from local storage being sourced for
presentation on the display without passing through the network
interface at least in part responsive to selection of the entry
corresponding to at least one video file stored locally, wherein
layout information of elements in the sub-UI and hyperlinks
related to the sub-UI are received by the TV from the Internet
video provider, such that the Internet video provider, as opposed
to the manufacturer of TV who establishes the main from which
the sub-UI is invoked, completes a layout design of the sub-UI
which the Internet video provider provides to the manufacturer
of the TV to facilitate invoking the sub-UI associated with the
Internet video provider when the sub-UI is selected from the
2
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
main UI according to the layout design of the sub-UI established
by the Internet video provider;
wherein at least a first thumbnail on the sub-UI
representing another menu and/or a content list which in tum is
presented when the first thumbnail is selected, the menu and/ or
content list being associated with a hyperlink to content defined
not by the manufacturer of the TV but by the Internet video
provider.
8. The TV of Claim 1, wherein the TV presents at least one
snippet of a widget overlaid on a video presentation on the
display, the widget being downloaded through the network
interface to present information on the display, the snippet being
movable by a viewer using a remote control (RC) in a first user-
s elected mode and not being movable by the viewer in a second
user-selected mode.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9--15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Martin et al. (US 7,174,512 B2;
issued Feb. 6, 2007) ("Martin"), Putterman et al. (US 2007/0211174 Al;
published Sept. 13, 2007) ("Putterman"), and Wroblewski (US
2006/0150215 Al; published July 6, 2006).
Claims 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Martin, Putterman, and Parker et al.
(US 2003/0234804 Al; published Dec. 25, 2003) ("Parker").
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Martin, Putterman, Parker, and Louch
et al. (US 2006/0005207 Al; published Jan. 5, 2006) ("Louch").
3
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Martin, Louch, and Chaudhri et al.
(US 2006/0015818 Al; published Jan. 19, 2006) ("Chaudhri").
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Martin, Louch, Chaudhri and
Wroblewski.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martin,
Putterman, and Wroblewski teaches or suggests "wherein layout information
of elements in the sub-UI and hyperlinks related to the sub-UI are received
by the TV from the Internet video provider," as recited in independent claim
1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 9?
Appellants contend Martin does not "say anything about hyperlinks."
(App. Br. 5.) Appellants further argue "Martin's head-end delivers content
directly to the user and thus leads one logically away from providing a
hyperlink to it as claimed, which establishes a teaching away." (App. Br. 6.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Martin describes a
portal containing cells. (Martin col. 1, 11. 59--65; Figs. IA, IB.) Each cell is
represented by a visual object such as live video, a graphic still, animation,
or text. (Martin col. 2, 11. 1-2.) The cells may be video cells, HTML cells,
and application cells. (Martin col. 11, 11. 59--61, Fig. 4B.) Martin describes
that the portal may be generated remotely at the headend. (Martin, col. 5, 11.
33-35.) Martin further describes that the cells in the portal "may be
generated as a combination of headend content such as mosaic programs,
stored content, and data (e.g., HTML content) ... and local content[.]"
4
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
(Martin col. 11, 11. 61---64; see also Martin col. 12, 11. 1--4.) When the user
selects a cell, the application or video channel is launched full screen.
(Martin, col. 2, 11. 8-9, 15-18.) Selecting a cell may also launch a sub-
portal. (Martin, col. 14, 11. 50-54.)
As noted by the Examiner, Appellants' disclosure does not explicitly
define a "hyperlink" (see Ans. 3), nor do Appellants provide a definition in
the Reply Brief. The Examiner finds that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of Appellants' Specification, a "hyperlink" is "within
the scope of HTML content as disclosed by Martin, since HTML, by
definition, is used to 'set up hypertext links between documents."' (Ans. 3.)
Appellants' arguments that HTML is not the same as a "hyperlink" (Reply
Br. 2) is not persuasive. The Examiner does not find that the HTML itself
teaches the hyperlink. We agree with the Examiner that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of a hyperlink in light of the Specification, that
Martin's portals made up of HTML cells providing HTML content generated
at the headend teaches the claimed hyperlink. (See Ans. 3; Non-Final Act 9-
10.)
Moreover, we are not persuaded that Martin teaches away from the
claimed invention. A reference teaches away from a claimed invention if it
"criticize[ s ], discredit[ s ], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" modifying the
reference to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because
Martin's head-end generates the portal and cell, i.e., the hyperlink. The
content underlying the cell is not necessarily delivered to the user at that
time. (E.g., Martin col. 16, 11. 5-24 (describing a user selecting a cell
associated with video on demand, a message indicative of the user's video
5
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
on demand choice communicated to a video on demand server computer
which may be located at the headend, and the server transmitting the
selected video to the user.)) As described, the user selects the cell to launch
an application, video channel, or sub-portal.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Martin teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1,
independent claim 9 which recites substantially similar limitations, and
dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10-15, and 21, which were not argued separately.
Claims 8 and 16
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martin,
Putterman, Parker, and Louch or the combination of Martin, Louch, and
Chaudhri teaches or suggests "the snippet being movable by a viewer using
a remote control (RC) in a first user-selected mode and not being movable
by the viewer in a second user-selected mode," as recited in dependent claim
8 and commensurately recited in independent claim 16?
The Examiner relies on Louch to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. (Non-Final Act. 21, 23-24; Ans. 5-6.) Appellants argue that
Louch does not "address snippets, or moving anything apart from merely
changing widget size, much less as claimed, much less still for a purpose it
never envisions," and therefore, "there is no teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to do something that Louch itself never envisions for a reason it
never contemplates." (App. Br. 6-7; see also App. Br. 8-9.)
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Louch describes an
authoring environment for creating and/ or editing user interface elements,
6
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
such as widgets. (Louch Abstract.) The Examiner relies on Louch's
disclosure that "Button 604 locks the widget size so that it cannot be
changed without first unlocking [it] .... " (Ans. 5, citing Louch i-f 128; Non-
Final Act. 21, 23-24.) The Examiner finds "Louch teaches a technique for
controlling the movability of a widget by providing the end user with the
option to lock the widget size." (Ans. 6.) Having considered the
Examiner's findings with respect to the teachings in Louch, we find the
Examiner has failed to adequately explain how Louch's teaching that the end
user has the option to lock the widget size teaches or suggests controlling the
movability of a snippet using a remote control in first and second user-
selected modes.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record not to sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 8 and independent claim 16. For
the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 18-20. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other
arguments regarding claims 8 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-15, and 21 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 16, and 18-20 is reversed.
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).
7
Appeal2015-002472
Application 12/688,595
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8