Ex Parte Hua et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 201412182388 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) 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. 12/182,388 07/30/2008 Suzann Hua LUTZ 200594US01 3693 48116 7590 04/09/2014 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/09/2014 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 SUZANN HUA and AHMED ZAKI ____________________ Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is related to automatic Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) channel switching (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of providing automatic channel switching for an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) user, the method comprising: retrieving the user's IPTV-related calendar data from a Calendar Server and storing the user's IPTV-related calendar data in a local database, wherein the calendar data includes the date and time at which the user wants to watch at least one IPTV broadcast on an IPTV viewing device; providing IPTV content to the users IPTV viewing device; and changing the channel on the IPTV viewing device automatically based on the user's calendar data. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Javid US 2007/0208718 A1 Sept. 6, 2007 Astala US 7,251,775 B1 July 31, 2007 Claims 1-5, and 7-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Javid. Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 3 Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Javid and Astala. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the Javid teaches or suggests “receiving the user’s IPTV- related calendar data from a Calendar Server and storing the user’s IPTV- related calendar data in a local database, wherein the calendar the data includes data and time,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Javid 1. Javid discloses storing user references on a web server, storing on a set-top box personalized media guide including programming information and user profiles downloaded from the media server and then rendering upon request this information to the client device (p. 3, ¶ [0037]; Fig. 1). 2. User profile database is a multi-dimensional database of user preferences that stores user preferences for channels, media and programs (p. 4, ¶ [0041]; Fig. 2). 3. The user may select the time frame for playing the selected content (p. 4, ¶ [0043]), wherein the timeframe may be set in the user profile that is connected to or hosted on the media server (p. 6, ¶ [0065]). Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 4 IV. ANALYSIS As for claim 1, Appellants contend “Javid fails to specifically disclose at least the claimed concept of storing and retrieving IPTV-related calendar data for the user” (App. Br. 10). In particular, Appellants contend “it is evident that Javid does not teach or suggest storing and using the specific type of calendar data as described in the present application” (Reply Br. 5). Appellants also contend “there is no indication that such time frame data [of Javid] is stored on a web server and then stored in a local database” (App. Br. 11). However, the Examiner finds that “Javid teaches downloading or retrieving personalized media guide (user profile) including programming information from a web server for storage at a local device” wherein the “user profile would comprise user preferences for channels and programs that user would like to watch” and “timeframes for playing/tuning in the programs or contents” (Ans. 8). The Examiner concludes “although Javid does not explicitly use the term ‘calendar data,’ it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize the presence of such ‘calendar data’ in Javid’s user profile that provides timeframe (date and time) for watching at least one broadcast program” (Ans. 9). We find no error with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over Javid. We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 merely requires “retrieving the user’s IPTV-related calendar data” from a server and “storing the user’s IPTV-related calendar data” in a local database, wherein “the calendar data includes the date and time at Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 5 which the user wants to watch at least one IPTV broadcast.” We conclude under a broad but reasonable interpretation that method claim 1 requires retrieving data from a server and storing data at the local client, wherein the data includes certain information, such as information concerning when the user wants to watch a broadcast. Thus, we conclude the recited “calendar data” is merely the type of data retrieved and stored, and the date and time information (data) corresponding to when “the user wants to watch” a broadcast (i.e., the environment of the method) is non-functional descriptive material. The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d,( Rule 36) (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also MPEP § 2111.05, (8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). Here, the informational content of the “calendar” data that is retrieved and stored is entitled to no weight in the patentability analysis. (Claim 1). Nevertheless, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding “Javid teaches downloading or retrieving personalized media guide (user profile) including programming information from a web server for storage at a local device” wherein the “user profile would comprise user preferences for channels and programs that user would like to watch” and “timeframes for playing/tuning in the programs or contents” (Ans. 8). In particular, Javid discloses retrieving data from a server and storing the data in a local set-top box (FF 1), wherein the retrieved and stored data comprise the user profile Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 6 including the timeframe when the user wants to watch a broadcast (FF 2-3). We agree with the Examiner that such user profile data comprises “calendar data” that includes the date and time (when) the user wants to watch the broadcast (Ans. 9). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Javid would at least have suggested the features of claim 1. That is, since, the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over Javid, the test for obviousness is not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As for claims 8 and 14, Appellants repeat the argument that Javid does not disclose “calendar data” (App. Br. 12-19). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Javid at least suggests this feature. Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 2-5, 7, 9-13, and 15- 18, which depend in respectively from claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, claims 2-5, 7, 9-13, and 15-18 fall with claims 1, 8, and 14. As for claims 6 and 19, Appellants merely contend “Astala does not add anything that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in Javid” (App. Br. 20 and 22). However, as discussed above, we find no deficiency in the Examiner’s reliance on Javid. According, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 19 over Javid in further view of Astala. Appeal 2011-012783 Application 12/182,388 7 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation