Ex Parte Kalantri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

14078315 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
14/078,315 11/12/2013 NEHA KALANTRI 13-DIS-299-STUDIO-US-UTL 5249
94472 7590 01/03/2017
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
EXAMINER
TESFAYE, AKLIL M
San Diego, CA 92130-2006 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
docketing @ sheppardmullin. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEHA KALANTRI, EDWARD DRAKE, and
KEVIN LIAO
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to providing a user with a digital media asset
interface through which the user can browse digital media assets in two
different directions (see Spec. 125). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A digital media asset interface method comprising:
presenting a digital media selection interface; and
receiving a user input via a user input device, wherein
the digital media selection interface presents the user with
a plurality of digital media assets, and further wherein
a first subset of the plurality of digital media assets is
presented in a first direction such that the user can navigate the
first subset of the plurality of digital media assets in the first
direction,
a second subset of the plurality of digital media assets is
presented in a second direction such that the user can navigate
the second subset of the plurality of digital media assets in the
second direction, and
the first subset of the plurality of digital media assets
comprises a past portion and a future portion such that
the past portion comprises a plurality of past digital media
assets that have been previously presented, and
2
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
the future portion comprises a plurality of recommended
digital media assets.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Segerberg et al. US 6,910,191 B2 June 21, 2005
Unger et al. US 2009/0199241 Al Aug. 6, 2009
Stinson, III et al. US 2012/0174157 Al July 5, 2012
Kandanala et al. US 2013/0042284 Al Feb. 14, 2013
Jeon et al. US 2014/0033238 Al Jan. 30, 2014
Shellman US 2014/0189747 Al July 3, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1,2, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kandanala and Jeon.
Claims 3—7 and 12—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kandanala, Jeon, and Segerberg.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kandanala, Jeon, Segerberg, and Shellman.
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kandanala, Jeon, and Stinson.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Jeon fails to teach or suggest the . . . two-
dimensional aspect of the claims” because in Jeon, “viewing history
information and recording information based on past or previously viewed
content may be presented (horizontally) to the left of the present point of
3
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
time, while broadcast information regarding future content may be presented
(also horizontally) to the right of the present point of time” (Br. 9). “Jeon
fails to teach or suggest a second subset of assets presented in a second
direction” (Br. 10). Appellants further contend “Jeon fails to teach or
suggest the presentation of actual ‘digital media assets’ as required in the
claims” (Br. 11). Rather, “Jeon describes presenting viewing history
information, future broadcasting information, and/or recording information. .
. . However, this is ‘information’ that is merely related to media, rather than
digital media assets themselves.” (Id.). We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner finds:
Jeon discloses an Electronic programming guide[] (EPG) with a
two dimensional (2d) grid of television (TV) program times on
one axis and television channels or service providers on another
axis (see fig. 4) and the program listings displayed on left
direction with respect to the time axis 430 includes previously
broadcast programs (i.e. past programs) and on the right direction
with respect to the time axis 430 includes currently broadcast
programs (i.e., current, in-progress programs) and programs to
be broadcast in the future (i.e., future programs).
(Ans. 3) (emphasis added). Indeed, Jeon’s Figure 4 shows horizontal rows
for a number of channels of an electronic program guide (EPG) with past
pieces of content for a given channel displayed on the left side of a present
time indicator, and future pieces of content displayed on the right side of the
present time indicator (see Jeon, || 123—130). We find Jeon’s horizontal
rows teach the claim 1 limitation “a first subset of the plurality of digital
media assets is presented in a first direction such that the user can navigate
the first subset of the plurality of digital media assets in the first direction.”
4
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
Jeon’s Figure 4 further shows vertical columns for a number of time
intervals with the pieces of content playing on the many channels at each
time displayed in separate columns (see id.). We find Jeon’s vertical
columns teach the claim 1 limitation “a second subset of the plurality of
digital media assets is presented in a second direction such that the user can
navigate the second subset of the plurality of digital media assets in the
second direction.” That is, a user may navigate horizontally for a given
channel row in Jeon’s EPG, and then, upon reaching a particular time,
navigate vertically to see what pieces of content are playing on other
channels at that time. Appellants’ arguments do not specifically explain
why Jeon’s vertical columns in Jeon’s two-dimensional EPG fail to provide
a second direction for navigation of digital media assets (see Br. 8—10). We
are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Jeon discloses “a
second subset of the plurality of digital media assets is presented in a second
direction” in a two-dimensional presentation of digital media assets as
recited in claim 1.
We are also not persuaded that Jeon fails to present “digital media
assets.” We disagree with Appellants that “the claimed ‘digital media
assets’ are media contents themselves, rather than just the electronic service
guide or broadcasting programming information to which Jeon is directed”
(Br. 11). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital media assets” in
claim 1 encompasses representations of “digital media assets,” including, for
example, meta-data relating to the assets. Claim 1 recites “the digital media
selection interface presents the user with a plurality of digital media assets.”
The notion that the claimed “digital media selection interface” would only
present a user with the actual “digital media assets”—i.e., the entirety of data
5
Appeal 2016-004028
Application 14/078,315
that comprises each presented asset—does not provide a basis for a
reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Rather, as Appellants’
Figure 2 provides, presentation of “digital media assets” includes the
presentation of labels identifying the assets, such as “Movie A,” “Movie B,”
and “Movie C.” Accordingly, we find Jeon’s information identifying
programs in the EPG, for example, “BASEBALL MATCH Y:Z” and “OO
DRAMA 7TH EPISODE” (Jeon, Fig. 11), meets the claim 1 limitation of
presenting “digital media assets.”
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2—24 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—24 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
6