11580980 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

Ex Parte Song et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

11580980 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAE-YOUNG SONG, YOUNG-CHUL SOHN, YONG-JUN KIM, and HYO-DAE KIM ____________ Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to managing broadcast content using stored electronic programming guide (EPG) information (Spec. ¶ [02]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electronic programming guide (EPG) providing apparatus in a digital broadcast receiver comprising: a storing unit which stores broadcast content and EPG information in the digital broadcast receiver; an EPG screen configuring unit which configures an EPG screen including information on past, current, and future broadcast content; and a control unit which collectively manages broadcast content provided on the EPG screen based on a user input signal for the broadcast content, wherein the EPG screen configuring unit uses the EPG information such that the broadcast content stored in the storing unit is distinguished from broadcast content that is not stored in the storing unit. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kimble US 2002/0016969 A1 Feb. 7, 2002 Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 3 Dimitrova Kamiyama Inoue Gaydou Miura US 2002/0144293 A1 US 2004/0064730 A1 US 6,813,774 B2 US 2005/0166230 A1 US 7,188,356 B1 Oct. 3, 2002 Apr. 1, 2004 Nov. 2, 2004 July 28, 2005 Mar. 6, 2007 (filed Nov. 17, 2000) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura and Dimitrova. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura, Dimitrova, and Inoue. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura, Dimitrova, and Gaydou. Claims 21, 22, 24-32, and 34-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura and Kimble. Claims 23 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura, Kimble, and Kamiyama. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 Appellants contend the combination of Miura and Dimitrova fails to disclose the claim 1 limitation “wherein the EPG screen configuring unit uses the EPG information such that the broadcast content stored in the Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 4 storing unit is distinguished from broadcast content that is not stored in the storing unit” (Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue, Miura only discloses that the EPG information is displayed such that the content stored in the center device (corresponding to the broadcast station in the instant application) is distinguished from content that is not stored in the center device. Miura fails to show, however, that broadcast content stored in the digital broadcast receiver is distinguished from broadcast content that is not stored in the digital broadcast receiver, as required by claim 1. (Br. 13-14). Moreover, Appellants argue, Dimitrova fails to disclose that the set top box displays EPG information which distinguishes content stored on the set-top box from content which is not stored on the set-top box. Therefore, Dimitrova also fails to disclose that broadcast content stored in the digital broadcast receiver is distinguished from broadcast content that is not stored in the digital broadcast receiver, as required by claim 1. (Br. 14). Appellants further argue, [T]he Examiner’s rejection fails to indicate why it would be obvious, based on the proposed combination of references, to create an EPG indicating that broadcast content stored in the digital broadcast receiver is distinguished from broadcast content that is not stored in the digital broadcast receiver, when neither reference discloses producing such an EPG. (Br. 14-15). We disagree with Appellants. Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13-14) that neither Miura nor Dimitrova individually disclose the disputed claim limitation are not persuasive because the Examiner’s rejection is based on the collective teachings of the references (See Ans. 4-5, 20-21). That is, the Examiner finds Miura Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 5 discloses an EPG that distinguishes between stored and non-stored broadcast content (Ans. 4-5), and Dimitrova discloses storing content in a personal video recorder of a set top box, i.e., a “broadcast receiver” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5). The resulting combination is an EPG that can distinguish between stored and non-stored content where the content is stored on a broadcast receiver. Appellants do not explain why it would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art to modify Miura’s EPG to recognize a different location of stored content, or that changing the location of the stored content would yield unpredictable results. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Further, Appellants’ argument that the Examiner fails to indicate why it would have been obvious to modify Miura in view of Dimitrova (Br. 14-15) is not persuasive because the Examiner provides a reasoned rationale and Appellants do not specifically address any shortcomings in the Examiner’s rationale for modifying the location of the stored broadcast content—“to minimize response time when serving user request and because there would be no requirement of bandwidth for transmitting the requested video content” (Ans. 5). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 2 and 4-20 not separately argued. Claims 21-41 Appellants contend Kimble does not disclose “a control unit which . . . generates a URL (uniform resource locator) using the read EPG information” as recited in claim 21 (Br. 18). Specifically, Appellants argue that “based on paragraph [0054] of Kimble, it is clear that the URL request Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 6 is a request for original source content, not a URL generated based on EPG information” (id.). We disagree with Appellants. Kimble discloses a set top box user can select a particular video on demand (VOD) program on an HTML page which represents an EPG (Kimble, ¶ [0050]). Upon selecting the VOD program, the set top box invokes a TV media handler and receives a Session Description Protocol (SDP) file which indicates certain parameters for the video to be presented (Kimble, ¶¶ [0050]-[0051]). The handler can parse the SDP file to determine the source of the video signal to be shown (Kimble, ¶ [0054]). “When the SDP file indicates a VOD session, the handler 300 generates a URL request to be directed to the respective VOD server as described” (id.). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12, 22-23) and find Kimble’s generating a URL request to the VOD source server indicated in the SDP file which was received by the set top box discloses the argued feature of generating a URL. Even though the SDP file contains the source of the video to be played, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to generate a URL request, Kimble’s set top box must at least format the source as a URL. In other words, we are not persuaded Kimble’s set top box merely requests a received URL, but rather Kimble’s set top box must generate the URL, based on the express disclosure in Kimble that “the handler 300 generates a URL request to be directed to the respective VOD server” (Kimble, ¶ [0054]) (emphasis added). We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21, and claims 22-41 not separately argued. Appeal 2011-009685 Application 11/580,980 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-41 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED tj