Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021000583 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 14/527,332 10/29/2014 Bran FERREN P38632C 2521 88032 7590 03/01/2022 Jordan IP Law, LLC 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401 Silver Spring, MD 20904 EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): admin@jordaniplaw.com info@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte BRAN FERREN, LAKSHMAN KRISHNAMURTHY, SCHWAN A. JASMANN, DAVID BEAL, and PABLO A. MAURIN 1 _____________ Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, 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 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system for facilitating multiple multimedia viewing planes in media display systems. Spec. ¶ 18, Abstract. Claim 41 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 2 41. A method for presenting a plurality of multimedia planes on a media processing device having a display screen and having a plurality of processes, comprising: combining a plurality of multimedia planes into an integrated set of multimedia planes to be presented through an integrated user interface at the media processing device, wherein the plurality of multimedia planes correspond to a plurality of content types including a first video content and one or more of a webpage content, a graphics content, an audio content, or a second video content, and wherein the one or more of the webpage content, the graphics content, the audio content, or the second video content does not overlap the first video content; in response to a user selection via the integrated user interface, presenting one or more multimedia content types from the plurality of content types, wherein the integrated user interface serves as a unified access point for presenting multimedia contents corresponding to the plurality of content types; facilitating interprocess communication between a first process associated with a first multimedia plane and a second process associated with a second multimedia plane to determine a display of content associated with the first process and a display of content associated with the second process; and simultaneously displaying a category selection area, a media object selection area, an information panel, and an action panel to facilitate simultaneous rendering of two or more of the plurality of content types including an audio content, a video content, a graphics content, or a webpage content, wherein one or more of the integrated set of multimedia planes serve as one or more selection areas, the one or more selection areas to be displayed as running horizontally or vertically, and wherein the one or more selection areas include a category selection area listing categories associated with the multimedia contents, and a media object selection area listing media objects associated with the categories, wherein at least one of the category selection area and the media object Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 3 selection area is located horizontally along a lower edge of the display screen. Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. (disputed claim limitations emphasized). REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 unpatentable over Barkan (US 2009/0070673 A1, pub. Mar. 12, 2009), Howes (US 2012/0030616 A1, pub. Feb. 2, 2012), DeWitt (US 2006/0236328 A1, pub. Oct. 19, 2006) and Yeh (US 2012/0117601 A1, pub. May 10, 2012). Final Act. 2-6.2 ANALYSIS With respect to the rejection of claims 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error as the combination of the references do not teach the claim 41 limitation directed to “simultaneously displaying a category selection area, a media object selection area, an information panel, and an action panel to facilitate simultaneous rendering of two or more of the plurality of content types including an audio content, a video content, a graphics content, or a webpage content.” Specifically, Appellant states that the Examiner’s rejection relies upon Yeh’s Figure 3 to show the claimed simultaneous display of the category selection area, media object selection area and the action panel and Yeh’s Figure 5 to show the information panel. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed May 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed October 26, 2020, the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 25, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Final Office Action, mailed September 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 4 argues that this does not meet the claim as Yeh teaches the GUI of Figure 3, is removed to display the GUI of Figure 5, thus Yeh does not teach or suggest simultaneously displaying the information panel simultaneously with the category selection area, media object selection area and the action panel as claimed. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Yeh ¶ 31). The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating that the cited paragraph is merely identifying an optional function, and finds that “the progress bar shown in figure 5 can be presented on any content being displayed on display 28 as is found in figure 3.” Ans. 8 (citing Yeh ¶ 32). Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner in the Final Action identifies that Yeh teaches: simultaneously displaying a category selection area (figure 3, part 82), a media object selection area (figure 3, part 88), an information panel (figure 5; paragraph 32) and an action panel (figure 3, part 84a) to facilitate simultaneous rendering of two or more of the plurality of content types including an audio content a video content, a graphics content, or a webpage content. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Yeh Figs. 3, 5, ¶ 32). We concur with the Examiner that paragraph 31 of Yeh is discussing an optional function, whereby the selection of the menu button can remove the GUI of Figure 3 and replace it with the display of Figure 5, and as thus Appellant’s argument relying upon this paragraph does not show error in the Examiner’s finding. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Examiner is conflating the sources of the content discussed in paragraph 32 of Yeh with the variations in the GUI of Yeh. Reply Br. 7. Appellant asserts the paragraph 32 discussion of “regardless of the source”, is referring to the many sources of Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 5 content that can be displayed in the GUI. Reply Br. 7-9 (citing Yeh ¶¶ 20, 22, 27). Appellant concludes that: Accordingly, part 82, part 88, and part 84a of Yeh all appear in the GUI 80 of FIG. 3 of Yeh, but would be removed and replaced by the GUI of FIG. 5 of Yeh that is cited for an information panel part (unnumbered) of Yeh. The feature of paragraph [0032] of Yeh emphasized by the Examiner merely shows that an information panel part (unnumbered) of Yeh could be presented over video from terrestrial tv sources, cable tv sources, etc., and does not appear to be described as being simultaneously displayed with the GUI 80 of FIG. 3 of Yeh. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not established that the cited reference discloses operations “simultaneously displaying a category selection area, a media object selection area, an information panel, and an action panel,” as recited in claim 41. Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Yeh in paragraph 32 discusses that the banner 108 may be made to appear in the display “regardless of the source (i.e. across all sources) of content.” We further note that paragraph 32 also discusses that the banner may include a fill bar and control keys if applicable to the currently viewed content. Thus, Yeh teaches that the display bar 108 is associated with the currently viewed content. Yeh, in paragraph 27, cited by Appellant, identifies that the sources of content are displayed in display 28, and shows this as the current video area 90 of Figure 3. See Yeh ¶ 27. 3 Thus, the sources do relate to the 3 Alternatively, we find a preponderance of the evidence shows that incorporating the display bar, item 108, into the current video section 90 of Figure 3 is suggested and would merely be the combination of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that would yield Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 6 display in the GUI and we do not agree with the Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s findings are conflating the sources of the content discussed in paragraph 32 of Yeh with the variations in the GUI of Yeh. We consider the Examiner to have identified sufficient evidence to show that Yeh teaches or suggests simultaneously displaying a category selection area, a media object selection area, an information panel, and an action panel as recited in claim 41. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 and claims 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57 grouped with claim 41. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 103 Barkan, Howes, DeWitt, Yeh 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 predictable results. (See, e.g., Yeh ¶ 30, discussing the menu button causing the shrinking the current display to be in portion 90 in GUI shown in Figure 3, which if performed when display is of the Figure 5 GUI is the current display, would result in the Figure 5 GUI being displayed in portion 90 of the GUI in Figure 3). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appeal 2021-000583 Application 14/527,332 7 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED