Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2013

11353584 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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.
11/353,584 02/14/2006 Sean S. Lee PD-205068 8232
20991 7590 04/22/2013
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2013 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 SEAN S. LEE
____________

Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-20, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a controller 60 coupled to
the non-volatile memory 74 and a tuner 64. The controller sets a time
window, receives information from the tuner 64, and stores the information
in the non-volatile memory 74 when the information is within the time
window. See Fig. 2; Spec. ¶ [0030].
Independent claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A receiving unit comprising:
a tuner;
a non-volatile memory; and
a controller coupled to the non-volatile memory and the tuner, said
controller setting a time window, receiving information from the tuner and
storing the information in the non-volatile memory when the information is
within the time window.
15. A method of operating a receiving device comprising:
storing program guide data in a non-volatile memory;
rebooting a receiver unit;
retrieving the program guide data from the non-volatile memory in
response to rebooting;
storing the program guide data in a dynamic memory; and
operating a program guide display from the dynamic memory.
Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

3

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 9, 20, and 22-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US Pub.
No. 2004/0075776 A1; Apr. 22, 2004) and Pietraszak (US
6,990,677 B1; Jan. 24, 2006).
2. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Pietraszak, and Iizuka (US Pub. No.
2005/0223405 A1; Oct. 6, 2005).
3. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Pietraszak, and Bhatt (US Pub. No.
2002/0073426 A1; June 13, 2002).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, Klopfenstein (US Pub. No.
2003/0051245 A1; Mar. 13, 2003), and Pietraszak.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Klopfenstein, Pietraszak, and
Iizuka.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Klopfenstein, Pietraszak, and Bhatt.
7. The Examiner rejected claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bhatt and Rodriguez (US 7,120,922 B2;
Oct. 10, 2006).

ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

4
1. The combination of Matsumoto and Pietraszak teaches the
limitation of a “controller setting a time window, receiving
information from the tuner and storing the information in the non-
volatile memory when the information is within the time window”
as recited in claim 1; and
2. The combination of Bhatt in view of Rodriquez teaches “retrieving
the program guide data from the non-volatile memory in response
to rebooting” as recited in claim 15.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 20, and 22-25
Appellant argues that Pietraszak does not teach storing information in
a non-volatile memory when the information is within the time window but
rather removing data from the storage device (App. Br. 7-8). In particular,
Appellant argues that Pietraszak (col. 8, ll. 18-23) teaches removing data
that is already stored rather than storing data within a time window (App. Br.
7-8). Appellant further argues that Pietraszak’s two-to-seven day window
refers to an expiration time and not a time for storing the information in a
non-volatile memory (App. Br. 8-9).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 19) that Pietraszak teaches an EPG writer that “stores” the
Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

5
EPG data that is collected (col. 8, ll. 11-18). We further agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 19) that Pietraszak teaches that the developer or user can set
a time period (i.e., time window) for when the EPG writer 43 is to receive
the EPG data (col. 3, ll. 2-26).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-14, 20, 22, 23,
and 25.
Appellant argues with respect to claim 24, that Pietraszak teaches
removing past data, but there is no teaching or suggestion for removing a
data unit from non-volatile memory when the data unit corresponds to a past
event (App. Br. 9-10). We agree with the Examiner that Pietraszak teaches
deleting a data unit from the non-volatile memory when the data unit
corresponds to the past event (i.e., EPG writer 43 deletes past EPG data)
(col. 8, ll. 24-34).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
Claims 15-19
Appellant argues that although Rodriguez, in column 29, lines 41-54,
recites storing preference-related data in a non-volatile memory to facilitate
recovery of data, there is no teaching or suggestion for retrieving program
guide data from the non-volatile memory in response to rebooting (App. Br.
12). Appellant explains that preference-related data refers to parameters
associated with customization of viewing (App. Br. 12; col. 29, ll. 42-58).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relied on
Bhatt for the teaching of storing program guide data in a non-volatile
memory (Ans. 21; Fig. 4; ¶ [0031]). The Examiner relied on Rodriguez for
the teaching that data stored in a non-volatile memory can be retrieved when
Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

6
there is a reboot operation or a power loss (col. 29, ll. 41-58). One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually (i.e., Rodriguez
not teaching program guide-data) where the rejections are based on
combinations of references (i.e., Bhatt teaches program guide-data). See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
We also note in passing that the type of data being retrieved upon
rebooting or power loss pertains to non-functional descriptive material.
Non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over
prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See In re Ngai, 367
F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to
non-functional descriptive material).
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and for
the same reasons the rejection of claims 16-19.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. The combination of Matsumoto and Pietraszak teaches the
limitation of a “controller setting a time window, receiving
information from the tuner and storing the information in the non-
volatile memory when the information is within the time window”
as recited in claim 1; and
2. The combination of Bhatt in view of Rodriquez teaches “retrieving
the program guide data from the non-volatile memory in response
to rebooting” as recited in claim 15.

Appeal 2010-010641
Application 11/353,584

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-20, and 22-25
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

babc