Ex Parte Sammarco

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2013

11380451 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 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.
11/380,451 04/27/2006 Anthony J. Sammarco PU05 0271CIP.297 2596
54494 7590 02/11/2013
MOORE AND VAN ALLEN PLLC FOR SEMC
P.O. BOX 13706
430 DAVIS DRIVE, SUITE 500
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
EXAMINER
EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2013 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 ANTHONY J. SAMMARCO
____________

Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is a portable mobile communications
device and a "system and method that can display and manipulate multiple
real-time data streams on a mobile device." (Spec. ¶ [0002].)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of navigating among multiple real-time data
streams on a mobile device, the method comprising:

locating and identifying real-time data streams capable of
being displayed by the mobile device;

determining whether the mobile device is capable of
executing multiple real-time data streams simultaneously;

displaying multiple thumbnail image representations,
each thumbnail image representation associated with an
available real-time data stream;

receiving a selection for a picture-in-picture (PIP)
display;

receiving a first navigation input from a user interface,
the navigation input for navigating among the multiple
displayed thumbnail image representations;

selecting a primary thumbnail image representation based
on the navigation input;

Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

3
receiving a second navigation input from the user
interface and selecting a secondary thumbnail image
representation based on the second navigation input;

activating an audio portion of the real-time data stream
associated with the primary thumbnail image representation;
and

displaying the real-time data stream associated with the
primary thumbnail image representation and the real-time data
stream associated with the second thumbnail image
representation in a PIP format on a mobile device display,

wherein the thumbnail image representations comprise
still images captured from their associated real-time data
streams when the mobile device is not capable of executing
multiple real-time data streams simultaneously and wherein
each thumbnail image representation comprises a real-time data
stream when the mobile device is capable of executing multiple
real-time data streams simultaneously.

REFERENCES
Zaslavsky US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0014752 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Barrett US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0071782 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Masuda US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0176471 A1 Aug. 11, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barrett, Zaslavsky, and Masuda.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 5, and 9, Appellant presents
arguments as to all three (3) claims as a single group. (App. Br. 7-12).
Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

4
Therefore, we will address Appellant's claims on appeal as a single group.
We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and will address
Appellant's arguments thereto.
Appellant argues that "t]he present invention locates and identifies
real-time data streams that are capable of being displayed by the mobile
device." (App. Br. 9). Appellant contends that "the present invention
provides for searching the received data streams and discriminating between
such data streams based upon whether the data streams are capable of being
displayed by the mobile device" and Appellant contends that the "identifying
data streams capable of display is equivalent to discriminating between data
streams. " (Id.). We disagree with Appellant's contentions and find that
Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the express
language of independent claim 1.
Appellant further contends that "i]dentifying data streams capable of
display prior to displaying the data streams insures that the real-time data
stream is in a form that allows the user to comprehend the subject matter
currently being broadcast on the data streams. " (App. Br. 9). Again, we
disagree with Appellant's contention and find that Appellant's argument is
not commensurate in scope with the express language of independent claim
1.
Appellant repeats the language of "locating and identifying …" and
maintains that the Barrett reference does not teach or suggest the claimed
limitations. (App. Br. 10). We disagree with Appellant and find that the
Examiner has further explained the claim interpretation and line of reasoning
where locating and identifying is interpreted with respect to the specific area
of the display with respect to the channel information (Ans. 13-14). We
Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

5
agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and application of the prior
art teachings. Appellant has not identified any express definition of the
claim terminology, and we find the same language as the claim language at
page 6 of Appellant's Specification. Therefore, Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner's claim interpretation or application of prior art
teachings to show error in the Examiner's ultimate conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellant argues that "Barrett does not teach or suggest any pre-
processing prior to display of the data stream that would locate and identify
data streams capable of being displayed." (App. Br. 10). Appellant's
argument is not commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 1 and does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellant repeats the language of independent claim 1 with regard to
the step of "determining whether the mobile device is capable of executing
multiple real-time data streams simultaneously" and the two "wherein"
clauses and contends that:
C]ertain mobile devices may not be capable of executing or
displaying multiple real-time data stream simultaneously, in
which case the mobile device is limited to display thumbnail
image representations of still images captured from their
respective real-time data streams. The presently claimed
invention provides for determination of whether the mobile
device is capable of executing multiple real-time data streams
simultaneously and based on the determination . . . .

(App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellant's contention that the display is
"based upon the determination" since "based upon" is not expressly found in
the language of independent claim 1 and the "wherein" clauses are not
Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

6
necessarily linked to this determination step. Appellant further contends that
the "determination of whether the mobile device is capable of] executing
multiple real-time data streams simultaneously takes into account that the
result of the determination may change over time, for example, if the device
undergoes a software upgrade or the like." (App. Br. 11). Again,
Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language
of independent claim 1 and does not show error in the Examiner's showing
of obviousness.
With respect to Appellant's arguments regarding process IDs (PID's)
and multiple video streams in Zaslavsky (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4), we
disagree with Appellant that Zaslavsky necessarily would determine "how
many video streams" since there may be older or less expensive set top
boxes which have limited capabilities. Therefore, Appellant's argument
does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant contends that Zaslavsky is "silent as to any teaching that,
absent the capability of executing multiple real-time data streams
simultaneously, the set top box would provide for displaying thumbnail
image representations that include still images captured . . . ." (App. Br. 12;
see generally Reply Br. 5-9). The Examiner maintains that Zaslavsky’s
paragraphs [0021] and [0117] teach and suggest this claimed limitation.
(Ans. 16). We agree with the Examiner and find that Zaslavsky’s
paragraphs [0021], [0117], and [0118] discuss and suggest the use of
"snapshots" of programming on each channel, live video, and "images" of
actual real-time programming. We find Appellant's argument unavailing,
and Appellant does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

7
With respect to Appellant's arguments in the Reply Brief, we find
Appellant's arguments unavailing and not commensurate in scope with the
express language of representative independent claim 1. (Reply Br. 1-3).
Appellant argues that Appellant "can find no disclosure of the television of
Barrett actually performing any operations other than merely displaying a
received signal which may or may not be a video feed capable of display."
(Reply Br. 3). We find Appellant's argument unavailing since the method of
independent claim 1 places no restrictions on the steps of "locating and
identifying" and "determining." Therefore, Appellant's argument is
unpersuasive. Additionally, we note that Barrett’s paragraph [0056] which
further details the disclosure in Figure 3 as introduced by paragraph [0054]
identifies channel information which necessarily would have to be identified
and located appropriately to the corresponding video data display.
Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's claim
interpretation or reliance on the prior art of Barrett.
With respect to Appellant's argument that the "determination of
whether the mobile device is capable . . ." (Reply Br. 3) may change over
time is not commensurate in scope with the express language of independent
claim 1. Therefore, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive of error.
With respect to Appellant's argument concerning the Examiner's
interpretation with regard to determining whether a mobile device is capable
of executing multiple real-time data streams simultaneously and the software
capability and software updates (Reply Br. 4-5), Appellants' arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the express language of independent claim
1. Therefore Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness.
Appeal 2011-004275
Application 11/380,451

8
With respect to dependent claims 2, 6, and 10, Appellant relies upon
the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1, 5, and 9.
Since we found no deficiency, we find Appellant's argument unavailing and
group these claims as falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 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

llw