Ex Parte Kikinis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2013

10071091 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2013)

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.
10/071,091 02/07/2002 Dan Kikinis 007287.00018 1032
22907 7590 02/01/2013
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2013 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 DAN KIKINIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-007314
1

Application 10/071,091
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JOHN G.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is JLB Ventures LLC. (App. Br. 3.)

Appeal 2010-007314
Application 10/071,091

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-14, 29-42, and 67-70. Claims 57-66 have been
withdrawn from consideration. Claims 15-28 and 43-56 have been canceled.
(App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for implementing an
electronic program guide (EPG). In particular, upon storing in its entirety a
received EPG data stream in a local storage, a user device scans the storage
area to remove therefrom superfluous information to thereby allocate the
data stream to discrete portions in the storage area. (Spec., ¶¶ [0017],
[0020].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for implementing an electronic program guide, the
method comprising:
receiving programming information from a source;
storing the received programming information, in its
entirety, in a data storage area; responsive to the received
programming information being stored in its entirety, continuously
scanning the data storage area, in a cyclical manner, to identify and
remove data entries meeting a first predetermined criterion;
responsive to storing the received programming information
in its entirety, partitioning the data storage area into a plurality of
discrete storage areas; and
Appeal 2010-007314
Application 10/071,091

3
distributing stored programming information to each
discrete storage area based on a second predefined criterion.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Emma US 5,155,831 Oct. 13, 1992
Arsenault US 6,728,966 B1 Apr. 27, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-8, 12-14, 29-36, 40-42, 67, and 68 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Arsenault.
2. Claims 9-11, 37-39, 69, and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Arsenault
and Emma.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 5-7, Reply Br. 1-4.
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Arsenault describes in response to storing, in its entirety, in a
data storage area, received programming information, a user device
continuously scans the data storage area to remove therefrom data entries
meeting a first criteria, and the user device further partitions the storage
area into a plurality of discrete storage areas, as recited claim 1?
Appeal 2010-007314
Application 10/071,091

4
Appellant argues that Arsenault does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 5-6, Reply Br. 1-2.) In particular,
Appellant argues that Arsenault discloses filtering received packets, and
storing them as they are received. However, Arsenault does not describe
storing the received data in its entirety. Further, Appellant argues that while
Arsenault describes storing received data streams in discrete storage areas, it
is not made in response to storing the received data in its entirety. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Arsenault’s disclosure of storing
in discrete regions of a storage medium the content of received program
guide data describes disputed limitations, as claimed. (Ans. 7-9.)
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation. Arsenault discloses upon downloading EPG information from a
satellite, a local receiver unit (IRD) stores the downloaded data as digital
content records that are used to create informational displays in the program
guide. (Col. 6, ll. 50-59.) Arsenault also discloses using linked lists to
remove redundant data or outdated data from storage. (Abstr., col. 9, ll. 41-
48.) While Arsenault discloses that content records are stored as they are
received (col. 7, ll. 15-16), such disclosure does not preclude the
programming information from being stored in its entirety. That is, we find
that the receiver incrementally stores each downloaded content data as it is
received until the entire EPG data is stored in the storage areas of the IRD.
Further, we find that by removing redundant or obsolete data from the
storage areas, Arsenault describes scanning the storage areas to remove
therefrom data meeting a first predetermined criterion. Additionally, we
Appeal 2010-007314
Application 10/071,091

5
find that by storing the EPG as discrete records in the storage areas,
Arsenault describes that the storage of the IRD is partitioned into
corresponding discrete storage areas that store the downloaded EPG. We are
therefore satisfied that Arsenault describes the disputed limitations. It
follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as being anticipated by Arsenault.
Because Appellant argues claims 2, 4-8, 12-14, 29, 30, 32-36, and 40-
42 together with claim 1, claims 2, 4-8, 12-14, 29, 30, 32-36, and 40-42 fall
therewith as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii).

Regarding claims 3 and 31, Appellant argues that while Arsenault
discloses that content records are accompanied by a title and a label,
Arsenault does not describe tokens that include compressed forms of
information about individual programs, nor does it describe associating
meanings with tokens. (App. Br. 6, Reply Br. 3.) This argument is not
persuasive. Arsenault discloses that downloaded EPG data may be
compressed (col. 4, ll. 27-29), and may also include description data. (Col. 4,
ll. 60-64.) We find that such disclosure describes the disputed limitations. It
follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3 and 31.
Because Appellant reiterates for claims 9-11, 37-39, 67-70, the
arguments presented for patentability of claims 1 and 3 above, and we find
no discrepancies in Arsenault for Emma to cure, claims 9-11, 37-39, and 67-
Appeal 2010-007314
Application 10/071,091

6
70 fall together with claims 1 and 3 as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. §
1.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14, 29-42, and
67-70 as set forth above.
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

tj