Ex Parte Stallings et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 201811500208 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation