Ex Parte Stallings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2018

11500208 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/500,208 08/07/2006
25537 7590 08/10/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heath Stallings
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
05-1013 3098
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEATH STALLINGS, BRIAN ROBERTS,
and DON REL YEA
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-13, 15-20, and 24--30. Claims App'x. Claims 2,
14, and 21-23 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to media content processing
subsystem configured to display a scrollable program guide graphical user
1 According to Appellants, Verizon Communications Inc. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
interface. Abstract. Claim 1 ( emphasis added) is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a media content processing subsystem configured to
display a scrollable program guide graphical user interface
configured to show a multiplicity of blocks of information
corresponding to a multiplicity of content carriers; and
display a magnified area within said program guide
graphical user interface;
wherein, when a block having a unexpanded width and
corresponding to a particular content carrier within said
multiplicity of content carriers enters into said magnified area by
scrolling of said program guide graphical user interface, said
processing subsystem is configured to display enhanced
information within said magnified area, said enhanced
information corresponding to a selected media content instance
transmitted via said particular content carrier;
wherein said magnified area is defined by a stationary
border that is displayed in a substantially stationary location
within said program guide graphical user interface;
wherein said magnified area includes a first portion,
within the stationary border, that is displayed in a first row
across the unexpanded width and a second portion, within the
stationary border, including said enhanced information that is
displayed in a second row across an expanded viewing width,
wider than the unexpanded width of the first portion, spanning
the multiplicity of blocks of said program guide graphical user
interface; and
wherein said magnified area is configured to display a
progress bar to graphically illustrate a recorded amount
associated with the selected media content instance.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 3, 9--12, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Coomer et al. (US
2007 /0300256 Al; filed June 26, 2006) (hereinafter "Coomer"), Borden, IV
2
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
et al. (US 6,857,128 Bl; issued Feb. 15, 2005) (hereinafter "Borden"),
Morris et al. (US 2008/0320523 Al; filed Apr. 15, 2004) (hereinafter
"Morris"), and Fukuda et al. (US 2005/0251825 Al; filed Jan. 24, 2005)
(hereinafter "Fukuda"). Final Act. 4--8.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris, Fukuda, and
Poslinski (US 2006/0020971 Al; filed July 22, 2004). Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris, Fukuda, and
Kondo et al. (US 6,763,522 Bl; issued July 13, 2004) (hereinafter "Kondo").
Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris, Fukuda,
Kondo, and Betz et al. (US 2003/0126605 Al; published July 3, 2003)
(hereinafter "Betz"). Final Act. 12-14.
Claims 27-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris, Fukuda, and
Alexander et al. (US 6,177,931 Bl; issued Jan. 23, 2001) (hereinafter
"Alexander"). Final Act. 14--15.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris, Fukuda, and
Ahmad-Taylor (US 2005/0235321 Al; filed Apr. 15, 2004). Final Act. 15-
16.
Claims 13, 18-20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, and Fukuda.
Final Act. 16-21.
3
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
Claims 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, and Fukuda. Final
Act. 21-22.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Coomer, Borden, Fukuda, and Kondo.
Final Act. 22-23.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11-13, 20, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Borden teaches an electronic program guide
depicting a plurality of program cells each including a program title and a
program description that is enhanced when the cell is magnified, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation
wherein said magnified area includes a first portion, within the
stationary border, that is displayed in a first row across the
unexpanded width and a second portion, within the stationary
border, including said enhanced information that is displayed in
a second row across an expanded viewing width, wider than the
unexpanded width of the first portion, spanning the multiplicity
of blocks of said program guide graphical user interface
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 ( citing Borden, Figs. 5---6). Furthermore,
the Examiner finds Coomer and Borden teach a magnified area while Morris
teaches a progress bar, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein
said magnified area is configured to display a progress bar to graphically
4
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
illustrate a recorded amount associated with the selected media content
instance" recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 ( citing Morris ,r,r 46-4 7, Fig. 4 ).
Appellants argue that Coomer teaches vertically expanding a single
row having a constant width, but fails to teach first and second portions of a
magnified area having different widths in respective first and second rows
such that the first and second portions are within a stationary border of the
magnified area as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3--4. In
addition, Appellants argue Borden teaches vertically expanding a cell with
uniform width to accommodate more metadata, but fails to teach first and
second portions of a magnified area having different widths in respective
first and second rows and within a stationary border of the magnified area as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4--5. Further, Appellants
argue Fukuda teaches tabs for selection of stations, but fails to teach a
second portion including said enhanced information that is displayed in a
second row across an expanded viewing width as required by claim 1. App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 6-7. Furthermore, Appellants argue Morris teaches
segments having a fixed width, but fails to teach a progress bar of a
magnified area as required by claim 1. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7-8. We
disagree with Appellants.
Regarding Appellants' argument pertaining to Coomer and Fukuda
(App. Br. 11, 13), we disagree with Appellants because one cannot show
nonobviousness "by attacking references individually" where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981) ). In this case, the Examiner relies on Borden, which teaches an
electronic program guide depicting a plurality of program cells each
5
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
including a program title (i.e., first portion in a first row within a stationary
border) and a program description (i.e., second portion in a second row
within a stationary border) that is enhanced when the cell is magnified (i.e.,
wider than the unexpanded width of the first portion) and displaying the
entire channel row with enhanced program description (i.e., spanning the
multiplicity of blocks of the program guide), which the Examiner maps to
the limitation
wherein said magnified area includes a first portion, within the
stationary border, that is displayed in a first row across the
unexpanded width and a second portion, within the stationary
border, including said enhanced information that is displayed in
a second row across an expanded viewing width, wider than the
unexpanded width of the first portion, spanning the multiplicity
of blocks of said program guide graphical user interface
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 ( citing Borden, Figs. 5---6).
In addition, the cited portions of Coomer and Borden teach a
magnified area while Morris teaches selected subset of program cells with a
progress bar such that the selected program cells are drawn from a larger
pool of electronic program guide data; Coomer and Borden's magnified area
combined with Morris' selected subset of program cells reasonably teaches
the limitation "wherein said magnified area is configured to display a
progress bar to graphically illustrate a recorded amount associated with the
selected media content instance" recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5-7 ( citing
Coomer, Figs 3-9; Borden, Figs. 5---6; Morris ,r,r 46-47, Fig. 4).
Appellants do not argue separately dependent claims 3, 9, 11, 12, and
29 with particularity, but assert the rejections of those claims should be
withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued in independent claims 1
and 7. App. Br. 16. Appellants proffer similar arguments with respect to
6
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
independent claims 13 and 20. Id. at 24. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 13, and 20; and
(2) dependent claims 3, 9, 11, 12, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 10 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Coomer teaches expanded cells include audio
clips and video clips, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "at least
one of audio-visual content, pre-recorded media content, data
communication services, images, and audio programming" as recited in
claim 10. Final Act. 8 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29); Ans. 9 (citing Coomer
,r,r 28-29).
Appellants argue Coomer discloses a second content cell may have
associated metadata, but fails to teach "at least one of audio-visual content,
pre-recorded media content, data communication services, images, and audio
programming" as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 9. We
disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Coomer teach expanded cells include audio clips
(i.e., audio programming) and video clips (i.e., audio-visual content and
images), which teaches the limitation "audio-visual content, pre-recorded
media content, data communication services, images, and audio
programming" as recited in claim 10. Final Act. 8 ( citing Coomer ,r,r 28-
29); Ans. 9 ( citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29).
Appellants proffer similar arguments pertaining to claim 18. App. Br.
24--25. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 10 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Poslinski teaches a recording icon
corresponding to a selected media content instance that is marked for
recording while displaying a progress bar to illustrate a recorded amount
associated with the selection. Final Act. 9 (citing Poslinski ,r 63, Abstract,
Figs. 3, 12). The Examiner concludes it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the
recording icon in the first portion to indicate easily program information
corresponding to the media content that is being recorded. Final Act. 10
( citing Poslinski ,r 6). The Examiner finds this conclusion of design choice
teaches a recording icon in the first portion as required by claim 4.
Appellants argue that Poslinski fails to teach recording icon in the first
portion and progress bar in the second portion as required by claim 4; and
Appellants argue the Examiner failed to provide extrinsic evidence and
technical reasoning to establish a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have concluded it was an obvious matter of design choice. App. Br.
17-18; Reply Br. 10-11. We disagree with Appellants.
At the outset, although the Examiner stipulated that the cited
references fail to teach a recording icon in the first portion, Appellants'
argument fails because the Examiner did provide technical reasoning (i.e.,
the Examiner states the reasoning is to indicate easily program information
corresponding to the media content that is being recorded) while Appellants
merely asserted the Examiner failed to provide extrinsic evidence and
technical reasoning in a conclusory manner. Appellants' conclusory
assertion lacks reasoning as to why the Examiner's conclusion is not an
obvious matter of design choice.
8
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
Appellants proffer similar arguments with respect to claims 15-16.
App. Br. 25-26. Appellants do not argue separately dependent claim 6 with
particularity, but assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn
for at least the same reasons as argued in independent claim 1. Id. at 1 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of: (1) claim 4, 15, and
16; and (2) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 5 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Kondo teaches a program guide showing blocks
in almost all of a vertical dimension, which the Examiner maps to "the
multiplicity of blocks of said program guide graphical user interface
occupies substantially all of a vertical dimension of a viewing area for
displaying said program guide graphical interface" as recited in claim 5.
Final Act. 11 (citing Kondo, Figs. 2A-2D).
Appellants argue Kondo teaches video channels displayed in at least a
portion of the video display, but fails to teach "the multiplicity of blocks of
said program guide graphical user interface occupies substantially all of a
vertical dimension of a viewing area for displaying said program guide
graphical interface" as recited in claim 5 because Kondo' s panel 59
interrupts the guide. App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 11-12. We disagree with
Appellants.
At the outset, Appellants' argument fails because claim 5 recites "the
multiplicity of blocks of said program guide graphical user interface
occupies substantially all of a vertical dimension of a viewing area for
displaying said program guide graphical interface," which means the
multiplicity of blocks do not have to occupy all of a vertical dimensions, but
rather, substantially all of the vertical dimension. In this case, the cited
9
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
portions of Kondo teach a program guide showing blocks in almost all of a
vertical dimension, which teaches "the multiplicity of blocks of said
program guide graphical user interface occupies substantially all of a vertical
dimension of a viewing area for displaying said program guide graphical
interface" as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 11 (citing Kondo, Figs. 2A-2D).
Appellants proffer similar arguments with respect to claim 17.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 5 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 requires a primary video feed
while claim 8 requires a secondary content video feed. The Examiner finds
that Coomer teaches a secondary content video feed that is displayed in the
second portion within the stationary border. Final Act. 12 ( citing Coomer
,r,r 28-29); Ans. 12-13 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29).
Appellants generally argue the cited references fail to teach the
limitations recited in claim 8, but specifically argues Kondo fails to teach "a
secondary content video feed ... corresponding to a selected second media
content instance transmitted via said particular content carrier" as recited in
claim 8 because Kondo only shows one video feed, rather than two video
feeds as required by claims 7-8. App. Br. 19. Appellants later argue that
Coomer teaches metadata including video or audio clips, which are not a
"secondary content video feed" displayed in a second portion. Reply Br. 12.
As an initial matter, the Examiner cited paragraphs 28 and 29 of
Coomer in both the Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer. Final Act.
12 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29); Ans. 12-13 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29).
Appellants' initial argument in the Appeal Brief is unpersuasive because one
10
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
cannot show nonobviousness "by attacking references individually" (i.e.,
Kondo) where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In this case,
the Examiner found the combination of Coomer's video clip and Kondo's
video feed teaches the primary video feed and secondary content video feed
required by claims 7-8. Final Act. 12 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29; Kondo, Fig.
2A).
Regarding Appellants' new argument that Coomer teaches video
clips, which are not a "secondary content video Jeer!' ( emphasis added)
(see Reply Br. 12), this argument is untimely and waived because the
Examiner initially cited to paragraphs 28 and 29 of Kondo in the Final
Rejection and later in the Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); compare
Final Act. 12 (citing Coomer ,r,r 28-29) with Ans. 12-13 (citing Coomer
,r,r 28-29).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Betz teaches a delayed preview and concludes it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the combination of Coomer, Borden, Morris,
Fukuda, and Kondo with Betz for the common knowledge purpose of
providing a user with a preview of a highlighted cell prior to tuning to the
cell to facilitate better content selection.
Appellants argue the Examiner's personal opinion of what constitutes
"common knowledge" is improper because it fails to provide evidentiary
11
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
support and adequate rationale. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 14--15. We
disagree with Appellants.
As an initial matter, the Examiner did provide evidentiary support in
the form of the Betz reference, which teaches showing a video preview of a
program before deciding to tune to it. Final Act. 13 ( citing Betz ,r,r 18-19,
Figs. 1 b and 3).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Betz teaches a time delayed preview that replaces
a plot synopsis within said magnified area with a secondary video feed,
which the Examiner maps to the limitation "replac[ing] said plot synopsis
within said magnified area with said secondary content video feed" recited
in claim 26. Final Act. 13-14 (citing Betz ,r,r 18-19, Figs. lb and 3); Ans.
16-17 (citing Betz ,r,r 18-19, Figs. lb and 3).
Appellants argue Betz does not teach replacing said plot synopsis
within said magnified area with said secondary content video feed. App. Br.
21; Reply Br. 15-16. We agree with Appellants.
As an initial matter, the cited portions of Betz do not teach replacing
plot synopsis with a video feed. Final Act. 13-14 ( citing Betz ,r,r 18-19,
Figs. lb and 3); Ans. 16-17 (citing Betz ,r,r 18-19, Figs. lb and 3). Nor
does the cited portions of the other references in combination with Betz
rectify this shortcoming. Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 16. At best, Betz appears
to replace a blank screen with a video clip, which fails to teach "replacing
said plot synopsis within said magnified area with said secondary content
video feed" ( emphasis added). Betz, Fig. 1 a.
12
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Alexander teaches a program guide with two
advertisement windows, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"wherein said advertisement is displayed in a portion of the viewing screen
not occupied by said program guide graphical user interface" recited in
claim 27. Final Act. 14--15 (citing Alexander, Fig. 1, 4:28-34, 10:13-20).
Appellants argue Alexander fails to teach the limitations of claim 27
because Alexander teaches two ad windows on the left side of the display
and nothing further regarding the positioning of the advertisement. App. Br.
22; Reply Br. 17. We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Alexander teach a program guide with two
advertisement windows next to the program listings, which teaches the
limitation "wherein said advertisement is displayed in a portion of the
viewing screen not occupied by said program guide graphical user interface"
recited in claim 27. Final Act. 14--15 (citing Alexander, Fig. 1, 4:28-34,
10:13-20).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Alexander teaches an advertisement for an
upcoming program, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein
said advertisement includes a reference to an upcoming media content
instance" recited in claim 28. Final Act. 15 (citing Alexander, Fig. 1, 4:28-
34, 10: 13-20).
13
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
Appellants argue that Alexander fails to teach the limitations of claim
28 because Alexander teaches two ad windows for products or services, but
not an advertisement for an upcoming media content instance. App. Br. 22;
Reply Br. 17-18. We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Alexander teach an advertisement for an
upcoming program, which teaches the limitation "wherein said
advertisement includes a reference to an upcoming media content instance"
recited in claim 28. Final Act. 15 (citing Alexander, Fig. 1, 4:28-34, 10:13-
20).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Ahmad-Taylor teaches a magnified area with a
plurality of selectable buttons, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"wherein said magnified area displays a plurality of selectable icons within
the stationary border, each selectable icon configured to enable access to
subsequent information or options related to the enhanced information
within said magnified area" recited in claim 28. Final Act. 15-16 (citing
Alexanderi-fi-f 29, 30, 40, 41, Figs. 2--4).
Appellants argue Ahmad-Taylor fails to teach the limitations of claim
30 because it has a single options button 68 with no icon and auxiliary menu
7 0 appears with auxiliary buttons in response to an actuation of the options
button. App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 18. We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Ahmad-Taylor teach a magnified area with a
plurality of selectable buttons such as "GO" and "OPTIONS" (i.e., a
plurality of selectable icons) within border 52, which the Examiner maps to
14
Appeal2016-007773
Application 11/500,208
the limitation "wherein said magnified area displays a plurality of selectable
icons within the stationary border, each selectable icon configured to enable
access to subsequent information or options related to the enhanced
information within said magnified area" recited in claim 28. Final Act. 15-
16 (citing Alexander ,r,r 29, 30, 40, 41, Figs. 2--4).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-13, 15-20,
24, 25, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15