Ex Parte Baldwin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2007

10061813 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES ARMAND BALDWIN
and PETER T. BARRETT
____________

Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: July 27, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Baldwin and Barrett (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claims 4, 9, 14 through 16, 18, 21, and 24,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to the structuring of program data prior
to delivery to a client's electronic program guide for easier searching by the
Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813

2
client. Claim 4 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
4. A method comprising:

storing program data for an electronic program guide in multiple
tables, each table comprising one or more records with one or more fields
and at least two said tables are related such that one said record in one said
table indexes another said record in another said table, wherein the records
comprise program records containing programming information, individual
program records having a title field to identify a program name; and

sorting the records in the tables according to a selected field type prior
to delivery of the program data to a remote client and the sorting comprises
arranging the program records in the tables according to a stopped name
version of the program name in the title field.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Byrne US 5,990,883 Nov. 23, 1999
Rodriguez US 2002/0059623 A1 May 16, 2002
(filed Jul. 30, 2001)

Claims 14 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez.
Claims 4, 9, 18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Byrne.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 12, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed August 15, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
December 12, 2006) for the respective arguments.

Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813

3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejections of claims 4, 9, 14 through 16, 18, 21, and 24.

OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 14-16 and Reply Br. 3-4) that Rodriguez fails
to teach sorting program data according to a stopped name version of the
program titles, as recited in each of the independent claims. Appellants
present no further arguments for claims 14 through 16. For claims 4, 9, 18,
21, and 24, Appellants contend that Byrne fails to cure the alleged
deficiency of Rodriguez. The Examiner asserts (Answer 9-11) that sorting
program data by a stopped name version of the program titles would have
been obvious, as Rodriguez discloses sorting by titles and suggests using
abbreviated versions of the titles for space considerations. Thus, the only
issue is whether sorting by stopped name versions of the program titles
would have been obvious in view of Rodriguez for claims 14 through 16 and
in view of Rodriguez and Byrne for the remaining claims.
Rodriguez discloses (paragraph 0073) that electronic program guide
(EPG) data is sorted according to attributes such as program title. Further,
multiple versions of each program title are stored. Abbreviated versions of
the program information to be displayed are preferred for EPG views where
space may not be available. Although Rodriguez does not specify the type
of abbreviations to be used, Rodriguez clearly suggests sorting by program
titles and shortening the program titles to save space. The Supreme Court
recently held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a
court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider "the
Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813

4
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art" and "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ." See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-
41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). In the present case, since an object of
the EPG in Rodriguez is to present a user with abbreviated information
about available programs, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan
to abbreviate the titles by omitting words that convey no information
specific to the programs. The skilled artisan knows that articles (a, an, and
the), prepositions, joinder words (and, but, and or) and other common words
typically convey no information specific to the programs. Furthermore, it is
well-known that stop words typically are not indexed in databases and are
omitted for searching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use stopped
name versions of the titles, as defined by Appellants on page 12 of the
Specification, for sorting program guide information. Accordingly, we will
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 16 over Rodriguez.
Furthermore, as Appellants' only argument for claims 4, 9, 18, 21, and 24 is
that neither Rodriguez nor Byrne suggests sorting using stopped name
versions of program titles, and since we have found that Rodriguez does
suggest sorting with stopped name versions of program titles, we will sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 9, 18, 21, and 24 over Rodriguez and
Byrne.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4, 9, 14 through 16, 18,
21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

KIS

LEE & HAYES PLLC
421 W RIVERSIDE AVENUE SUITE 500
SPOKANE, WA 99201