Ex Parte Jerding et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 1, 2011

09590904 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2011)

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.
09/590,904 06/09/2000 Dean F. Jerding 60374.0004USU5/CPOL967848 1598
62658 7590 09/02/2011
MERCHANT & GOULD
SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DEAN F. JERDING, ARTURO A. RODRIGUEZ,
and ROBERT O. BANKER
____________

Appeal 2009-011060
Application 09/590,904
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2, 3, 5-30, 32-37, 39-54, and 59-64. No other claims are pending.
(App Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-011060
Application 09/590,904

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to television interactive program guides
that search for television program information and display the results on a
viewing device (see Spec. 3:3-11).
Exemplary independent claim 63 reads as follows:
63. A programmable television services client device for enabling a
user to search for television program information, said client device
comprising:
memory comprising:
program information corresponding to a plurality
of television programs;
an initial interactive program guide (IPG)
arrangement; and
a user interface (UI) module; and
a processor configured with the UI module to associate the
program information with the initial IPG arrangement, the processor
further configured with the UI module to:
present the initial IPG arrangement on a display device,
the initial IPG arrangement including a channel area, a first
program display area adjacent the channel area, and a browse-
by icon;
receive a first user input corresponding to selection of the
browse-by icon;
present a first IPG arrangement on the display device
responsive to the first user input, the first IPG arrangement
comprising a browse-by area that displaces the channel area, the
browse-by area having a search option;
receive a second user input corresponding to selection of
the search option;
present a second IPG arrangement on the display device
responsive to the second user input, the second IPG
arrangement comprising a user input field that displaces the
browse-by area;
receive a third user input corresponding to a search term,
the third user input entered through the user input field;
Appeal 2009-011060
Application 09/590,904

3
search the program information based on the search term;
and
present a third IPG arrangement on the display device
responsive to the search, the third IPG arrangement comprising
a second program display area that displaces the user input
field, the second program display area comprising a search
result comprising the program information for a portion of the
plurality of television programs where the search term is in a
respective television program title.

The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5-30, 32-37, 39-54, and 59-64
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of and Rothmuller (US
5,635,989) and Legall (US 6,005,565).
The Examiner rejected claims 9-14 and 39-41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of and Rothmuller, Legall, and Boyer (US
6,268,849 B1).1

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds (Ans. 3-5) that Rothmuller discloses the claimed
features except for
where the browse area or browse-by-cells of varying length is
the claimed "browse-by- icon" and a user-selectable search
option, having browse-by area having a search option and
providing various guide arrangements, i.e., Display of fig.2
does not clearly show "...a second program display area .... ,"
responsive to the search option.

(Ans. 6). The Examiner relies on Legall for disclosing these features and
states that it would be obvious to modify Rothmuller accordingly (Ans. 6-7).

1 The final rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-30, 32-37, 39-54, and 59-64 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, was withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 11).
Appeal 2009-011060
Application 09/590,904

4
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not clearly stated which
portions of Rothmuller correspond to the first IPG arrangement and a
browse-by area that has a search option or displaces the channel area, as
recited in claim 63 (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 3-4). In response to the
Examiner’s position that Rothmuller receives the user’s input to search for
and display programs (Ans. 12-13), Appellants argue that the user input is
via a keyboard or an IR remote to the processor which creates a favorite list
(Reply Br. 4). Appellants further assert that Rothmuller does not disclose
that this favorite list is presented to the user, or includes a browse-by area
that displaces the channel area or has a search option (id.).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions above. In particular, we do
not find that the program guide shown in Figure 2 of Rothmuller displays the
required areas of the IPG arrangements, as recited in claim 63. We also
agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 4) that the user inputs entered via an IR
remote in Rothmuller result in the processor 15 to modify the list of favorite
programs, but does not cause displaying the related modifications or the
browse-by area and the search options (see col. 4, ll. 29-53; col. 6, l. 60 –
col. 7, l. 9). In other words, the teachings relied on by the Examiner indicate
that Rothmuller merely displays the program guide shown in Figure 2 based
on the information stored in the memory with no changes to the presented
guide including the displayed icon and areas required by the claims.
Further, we agree with Appellants that Legall does not remedy the
deficiencies of Rothmuller (App. Br. 15-16). Specifically, as contended by
Appellants (Reply Br. 6), the search area shown in figure 3B of Legall
includes no displayed channels which are displaced by a browse-by area
having a search option, as recited in claim 63.
Appeal 2009-011060
Application 09/590,904

5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 63, as well as claim 64 which includes similar
limitations, as obvious. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 63 and 64, or of claims 2, 3, 5-30, 32-37, 39-54, and 59-62 dependent
therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-30, 32-37, 39-54,
and 59-64 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc