Ex Parte Wugofski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2003

09002733 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THEODORE D. WUGOFSKI
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 16, all the claims present in the application.
The present invention is directed to a convergence system
that displays channel banners that assume the same form
regardless of the source. See page 3 of Appellant’s
specification.
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
2
Independent claim 1 present in the application is reproduced
as follows:
1. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable
components stored thereon for execution on a suitably equipped
computerized system, the components including:
a television services component for receiving a plurality of
inputs from a plurality of sources, wherein each input
includes a corresponding data set; and
a user interface component for providing a partial-screen
graphical user interface in response to the data set of
a selected source;
wherein the graphical user interface includes a basic field
for display in a consistent form regardless of the
selected source, wherein the consistent form comprises
a same displayed location and format of the basic field
regardless of the selected source.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Belmont 5,819,156 Oct. 6, 1998
(filed Jan. 14, 1997)
LaJoie et al. (LaJoie) 5,850,218 Dec. 15, 1998
(filed Feb. 19, 1997)
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Belmont in view of LaJoie.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
3
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is a
multipurpose channel banner or basic fields consistent across
multiple sources. See page 5 of Appellant’s brief. In
particular, Appellant points out that the claims must be
interpreted in light of the specification in which the term
“source” has a special meaning in that it provides the channel or
events to the convergence system. Appellant points to the
specification at page 6, lines 10-11. Appellant argues that the
specification provides examples of sources as being a radio-
frequency receiver, a satellite receiver, a digital receiver and
consumer electronic devices such as a videocassette recorder,
digital video disc, laser disc, video camera, or the like.
Appellant points to the specification at page 6, lines 5 through
11.
Appellant points out that the claims recite “wherein the
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
4
consistent form comprises a same displayed location and format
for the basic field regardless of the selected source.” See page
5 of the brief. Appellant points to Appellant’s specification,
page 4, lines 12 through 17, which support the claim language to
mean that regardless of the selected source information it is
displayed in consistent form so that the displayed information is
predictably in the same location and the same format no matter
what the source. Appellant further points to Appellant’s
specification at page 10, lines 20 through 28 and page 11, line
1, for support that the claim language means that after the user
changes from one source to another, that channel banner maintains
consistent layout and form of the displayed fields.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “In examining a patent claim, the PTO
must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.” In re Bass, F.3d , USPQ2d ,
pages 4 and 5 of slip op 02-1046 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2002). Citing
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
5
1984). Words in a claim are to be given their ordinary and
accustomed meanings unless the inventor chooses to be his own
lexicographer in the specification. In re Bass, slip op at 5,
citing Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 31 USPQ2d
1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We note that independent claim 1 recites
wherein the graphical user interface includes a basic field
for display in a consistent form regardless of the
selected source, wherein the consistent form comprises
a same displayed location and format of the basic field
regardless of the selected source.
We note that independent claim 7 recites similar language.
Finally, we note that independent claim 11 recites
channel banner includes a plurality of basic fields
updatable with the data set wherein the basic fields retain
a consistent form regardless of the selected input
component, wherein the consistent form comprises a same
displayed location and format of the basic fields regardless
of the selected input component.
We find that the specification defines basic fields as those
fields occurring across the various sources. In particular, the
channel banner 54 includes a plurality of fields such as
date/time field 58, current event field 60, and current channel
field 61. Such fields are presented in the embodiment as basic
fields 56 in that they contain information applicable to most, if
not all, of the source components 21. See Appellant’s
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
6
specification at page 10, lines 1 through 4, and also see
Appellant’s brief, page 6. Thus we find that the claims require
that after the user changes from one source or input component to
another, the graphical user interface or channel banner remains
consistent in layout and form of the displayed fields. Also, the
displayed information is predicably in the same location and in
the same format.
Appellant argues that Belmont and LaJoie, alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest the plurality of fields
retaining a consistent form regardless of the selected source,
where the consistent form comprises a same displayed location and
format of the plurality of fields regardless of the selected
source. See pages 7 and 8, of Appellant’s brief.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument by stating
that the LaJoie system discloses a program information banner to
be displayed whenever the user changes channels to help the user
identify programs being presented on each channel. The Examiner
points to column 5, lines 15 through 22 and column 6, lines 47
through 65.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
7
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
The factual inquiry whether to combine references under
35 U.S.C. § 103 must “be based on objective evidence of record.”
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir.
2002). This “showing must be clear and particular.” In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). “In other words, the Board must explain the reasons one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select
the references and combine them to render the claimed invention
obvious.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1434 quoting In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992). See also Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
8
quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459
(Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]he Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1344, 61
USPQ2d at 1434. With these principles in mind, we commence
review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and
Examiner.
Upon our review of LaJoie we find that indeed LaJoie does
teach in column 5, lines 10 through 22, that a comprehensive
channel navigation would enable the cables subscriber to more
easily navigate through the abundance of programming and services
that are available wherein a program information banner may be
displayed whenever the user changes channels. Also we find that
LaJoie teaches in column 6, lines 47 through 68 that LaJoie’s
invention includes a highlighted channel banner.
However, we fail to find that LaJoie teaches that the
highlighted channel banner includes basic field for displaying in
a consistent form regardless of selected sources, wherein the
selected form comprises a same displayed location and format of a
basic field regardless of the selected source. In particular,
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
9
LaJoie teaches that figure 14 is an illustrative screen display
of a general settings menu of a set-top terminal of one
embodiment of the present invention. See column 8, lines 59
through 61 of LaJoie. LaJoie further discloses that figure 14
illustrates all timer setting of the general settings menu. See
column 22, lines 47 through 68 of LaJoie. LaJoie then teaches
another screen display in which the fields are completely
different in figure 20. Figure 20 is an illustrative screen
display of the theme mode of an interactive program guide of a
set-top terminal. See column 9, lines 8 through 10 and column
26, lines 48 through 68, of LaJoie. Finally, LaJoie teaches a
completely different screen with completely different field
layouts in figure 29. Although LaJoie teaches that figure 29 is
a screen display of an impulse pay-per-view. See column 9, lines
21 through 24 and column 30, line 54 through column 32, line 7,
of LaJoie. Therefore, we fail to find that the Examiner has
provided substantial evidence that LaJoie teaches or suggests a
basic field for display in consistent form regardless of the
selected source, wherein the consistent form comprises a same
displayed location and format of the basic field regardless of
the selected source as set forth in Appellant’s claims.
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
10
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S. C. § 103.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
11
Mark Walker (Mail Drop SD-21)
Gateway, INC.
14303 Gateway Place
Poway, CA 92064