Ex Parte Mountain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2017

12486617 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)

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.
12/486,617 06/17/2009 Dale Llewelyn Mountain P2009-03-11 (066.0255) 5526
70560 7590 03/03/2017
T Kfrlnhal fRrhn.Stari
EXAMINER
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
CORBO, NICHOLAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2017 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):
IPDEPT @ echostar.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALE LLEWELYN MOUNTAIN
Appeal 2016-007006
Application 12/486,6171
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 15—23, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to a television programming guide that
displays content from a website. Spec. 1—3, Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is EchoStar UK Holdings
Limited. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007006
Application 12/486,617
1. A method of accessing information in an electronic programming
guide, comprising:
receiving electronic programming guide data at a television receiver
from a program service provider, the electronic programming guide data
including selectable and non-selectable attributes, each selectable attribute
associated with a tag;
outputting the electronic programming guide data in a data stream from
the television receiver for display in an electronic programming guide
displayed on a display device, the electronic programming guide highlighting
the selectable attributes;
receiving an input signal at the television receiver from a user input
device, the input signal indicating that a selected attribute has been chosen
from the electronic programming guide;
in response to receiving the input signal, selecting, by a processor, a
network node based on the tag associated with the selected attribute;
in response to selecting the network node, initiating a network
transaction across a networkfrom the television receiver to the network node,
the network transaction including the selected attribute, wherein initiating the
network transaction comprises passing the selected attribute across the
network to the network node without the selected attribute passing through
the service provider from which the electronic programming guide data is
received;
in response to initiating the network transaction, receiving a reply at
the television receiver from the network node over the network, wherein
receiving the reply comprises receiving information from the network node
across the network without the information passing through the service
provider from which the electronic programming guide data is received; and
in response to receiving the reply, parsing the information contained in
the reply from the television receiver, categorizing the parsed information into
a plurality of categories, each category including a plurality of attributes listed
therein, wherein categorizing is performed based on the attributes such that
each category is created based on a specific type of attribute, and outputting
the parsed information as part of a data stream for display on the display
device, the information being associated with the selected attribute.
Rejections
Claims 1, 6—8, 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Haberman (US 2007/0101375 Al; May
2
Appeal 2016-007006
Application 12/486,617
3, 2007), Brodersen et al. (US 2008/0066100 Al; Mar. 13, 2008), Ellis et al.
(US 2008/0066103 Al; Mar. 13, 2008), and Ma et al. (US 2005/0177861
Al; Aug. 11, 2005). Final Act. 6.
Claims 2, 9, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Haberman, Brodersen, Ellis, Ma, and the
admitted prior art. Final Act. 16.
Claims 4, 5, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Haberman, Brodersen, Ellis, Ma, and Shoff
et al. (US 6,240,555 Bl; May 29, 2001). Final Act. 18.
Claims 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Haberman, Brodersen, Ellis, Ma, Wagner (US
2004/0216156 Al; Oct. 28, 2004), and Tu (US 2006/0136246 Al; June 22,
2006). Final Act. 21.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Haberman teaches or suggests
communicating with a network node “in response to receiving the input
signal” from a user input device, as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “receiving an input signal at the television receiver
from a user input device” followed by a series of events “in response,”
including “in response to receiving the input signal, selecting ... a network
node” and “in response to selecting the network node, initiating a network
transaction.”
Appellant argues Haberman fails to teach this “cascade” of “in
response to clauses” because Haberman discloses getting information from
3
Appeal 2016-007006
Application 12/486,617
IMDb.com “prior to the user performing that action,” not “in response” to
the user input. App. Br. 15, 13.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant is limiting
themselves to Haberman’s first source of information whereas Haberman
expressly discloses a “second source of information is found in the
connection to a variety of internal and external sources (e.g., IMDB).” Ans.
2—3 (citing Haberman || 43, 51, 65). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that Haberman does not “inherently” teach a connection on
demand. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner here relies on obviousness, not
anticipation, so the prior art is not limited to what “necessarily” must happen
and instead the Examiner can consider likely possibilities, including that the
connection is on demand rather than in advance to arrive at the same
predictable result. SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (“a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 4—11, and 15—23, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 17; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 15—23.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
4