Ex Parte Arora

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2012

09908039 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JITESH ARORA
____________________

Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 153-157, 159-169,173-187, and 190-192 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-152,
158, 170-172, 188, and 189 have been canceled (id.).1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for display
of multiple media channels from one or more media sources; wherein, the
system selects a subset of plurality of media channels based on the user’s
viewing pattern to generate a surf list and simultaneously displays a portion
of each media channel on a display device (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 153 is exemplary:
153. A method comprising:

receiving at a media processing system of a display
device, from a first type of media source, a first set of media
channels, wherein the first type of media source is selected
from a group consisting of a broadcast media source, a cable
television source, an Internet source, and a stored media player
source;

receiving at the media processing system, from a second
type of media source different than the first type of media

1 Claim 159 depends from canceled claim 152 (App. Br. 22). We deem this
to be an oversight by Appellants and consider claim 159 to be cancelled as
well.
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

3
source, a second set of media channels, wherein the second type
of media source is selected from the group consisting of a
broadcast source, a cable television source, an Internet source,
and a stored media player source;

selecting at the media processing system a third set of
media channels for simultaneous display based on a set of
viewing patterns of a user, the third set comprising at least one
media channel of the first set and at least one media channel of
the second set; and

providing a portion of each media channel of at least a
subset of at least two media channels of the third set for
simultaneous display at a display device.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Herz US 6,088,722 Jul. 11, 2000
Goldschmidt US 6,295,646 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
(filed Sep. 30, 1998)
Snook US 6,400,378 B1 Jun. 04, 2002
(filed Sep. 26, 1997)
Proehl US 2002/0124071 Al Sep. 05, 2002
(filed Mar. 02, 2001)
Boykin US 2003/0079222 Al Apr. 24, 2003
(effectively filed Jun. 25, 2001)
Labeeb US 2003/0093792 Al May 15, 2003
(filed Jun. 27, 2001)
Newberry US 6,993,782 B1 Jan. 31, 2006
(filed Mar. 16, 2000)
Ellis US 7,185,355 Bl Feb. 27, 2007
(filed Mar. 04, 1998)

Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

4

Claims 153-155, 157, 1602, 161, 166-168, 173-176, 178-182, 186,
190, 191, and 192 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldschmidt in view of Herz.
Claims 156 and 177 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldschmidt in view of Herz and Proehl.
Claims 162, 163, and 183 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goldschmidt in view of Herz, Ellis, and Snook.
Claims 164, 165, 184, and 185 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldschmidt in view of Herz and Ellis.
Claims 169 and 187 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldschmidt in view of Herz and Newberry.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Goldschmidt and Herz teaches or would
have suggested:
1. “selecting at the media processing system a third set of media
channels for simultaneous display based on a set of viewing patterns of a
user, the third set comprising at least one media channel of the first set and
at least one media channel of the second set” (claim 153, emphasis added);
and
2. “receiving at the media processing system of a display device,
from a content source different than the first type of media source, content
information associated with the first set” (claim 174, emphasis added).

2 We consider claim 159 to be canceled, since it depends from canceled
claim 152.
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

5

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the media processing system 120 uses
program guide server 125 which supplies additional information necessary
to generate a surflist 140 from the user’s viewing pattern 130 (Spec. 4:21-
22).
Goldschmidt
2. Goldschmidt discloses a system 100 that may be configured to
receive entertainment selections and entertainment system data from various
entertainment selection sources including a cable broadcast 141, satellite
broadcast 142 (e.g., via a satellite dish), very high frequency (VHF) or ultra-
high frequency (UHF) radio frequency communication of the broadcast
networks 143 (e.g., via an aerial antenna), telephone/computer network
broadcast 144, and information stored locally at system controller 140 or
another component of the entertainment system 100 (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 13-25
and col. 9, ll. 2-8).
3. A graphical user interface (GUI) 600 includes windows 610,
620, 630, 640, 650, and 660, each for displaying a different one of the
entertainment selection sources (Fig. 6; col. 8, l. 66 - col.9, l.8). In
particular, a channel scan unit 500 generates the GUI which displays video
data and entertainment system selection data from the plurality of
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

6
entertainment selection sources based upon a list of user preferences (col. 7,
ll. 30-34 and 43-51).
Herz
4. Herz discloses selection of video programs or other data which
most closely match the customer’s objective preferences (col. 4, ll. 35-38).
In particular, a passive feedback technique used for updating the customer
profiles in accordance with the video programming actually watched by the
customer includes the creation of a customer profile and a content profile for
each video program available for viewing (col. 6, ll. 44-57 and col. 6, ll. 58-
63).
5. The video program material and the associated content profiles
created from the viewing histories are received at the headend and then
transmitted to the set-top-box (STB) (Fig. 5; col.6, ll. 44-63 and col. 46, ll.
36-40 and 54-59).
6. Within the STB, a processor 906 receives from display guide
914 Electronic Program Guide (EPG) listing information to determine an
agreement matrix 908 which is stored in memory 908; wherein, the
agreement matrix includes a list of “preferred channel selections” or “virtual
channels” (Fig. 9; col. 47, ll. 9-11).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 153-155, 157, 160, 161, 166-168,
173, and 190-192

As to representative independent claim 153, Appellant contends that
“Goldschmidt does not disclose determining a viewing pattern of a user”
(App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that “[t]here is no disclosure by Herz that the
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

7
virtual channels are simultaneously displayed” (App. Br. 8). Appellant
contends further that “Herz teaches away from a combination with
Goldschmidt” (App. Br. 9) because “Herz discloses that prior art system[s]
are disadvantageous [since] they do not assist a customer in selection desired
programming” (id.) and “the system of Goldschmidt provides a system that
facilitates display of available channels to a user but does not provide
assistance to the customer in determining what programming to select”
(App. Br. 9-10).
However, the Examiner finds that “Goldschmidt teaches a system for
providing a splash screen for displaying programs from a plurality of sources
on a single display screen” (Ans.16). The Examiner notes further that “Herz
is brought in to teach the viewing patterns” (id.). The Examiner finds that
Herz merely discloses the disadvantages of “a traditional television set that
only allows for inputting a channel selection at a given time when a program
is on” while “Goldschmidt on the other hand teaches that the user can input
a preferred actor into a user preference to allow the system to find
programming to display to the user on a splash screen” (Ans. 19).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 153 does not place any limitation on what “viewing patterns of
the user” means, includes, or represent. Thus, we give “selecting … media
channels … based on a set of viewing patterns of a user” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as basing the selection of channels upon which
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

8
programs the user watches, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 153.
Goldschmidt discloses a system that receives entertainment selections
and entertainment system data from various entertainment selection sources
(FF 2). The GUI includes windows that each display one of the
entertainment selection sources based upon a list of user preferences (FF 3).
We find that system comprises simultaneous display of programs from
various sources. That is, we find that “selecting at the media processing
system a third set of media channels for simultaneous display” (claim 153)
reads on Goldschmidt’s GUI.
In addition, Herz discloses selection of video programs or other data
which most closely match the user’s viewing habits using a passive feedback
technique for updating the customer profiles in accordance with the video
programming actually watched by the customer (FF 4). We find that passive
feedback technique comprises selection of media channels based upon the
viewing habits of the user. Thus, we find that “selecting at the media
processing system a third set of media channels … based on a set of viewing
patterns of a user” (claim 153) reads on Herz’s passive feedback technique.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Goldschmidt and Herz at least suggests providing “selecting at the media
processing system a third set of media channels for simultaneous display
based on a set of viewing patterns of a user, the third set comprising at least
one media channel of the first set and at least one media channel of the
second set,” as specifically required by claim 153.
Though Appellant also contends that “Herz teaches away from a
combination with Goldschmidt” (App. Br. 9), our reviewing court has held
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

9
that “‘[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc.
v. SGS Importers Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appellant has not identified persuasive support for a direction
divergent from the claimed invention since the claim does not recite features
that require “provid[ing] assistance to the customer in determining what
programming to select” (App. Br. 9-10). Here, the Appellant appears to
have viewed the reference from a different perspective than the Examiner.
The issue here is not whether Goldschmidt teaches a system that does not
provide assistance to the customer and Herz describes the disadvantages of
such systems as Appellant; but rather, whether a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading Goldschmidt, would be discouraged from using the step of
selection of channels based upon the user’s viewing habits as taught by
Herz.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he 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).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Goldschmidt’s system (including a GUI having multiple windows that
display media content from different media content sources) with the
selection of media content based upon the user’s viewing habits, as disclosed
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

10
in Herz, produces selection and display of media channels based upon the
user’s viewing habits which would be obvious (Ans. 18; FF 2-6).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 153 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Goldschmidt in
view of Herz. Further, claims 154, 155, 157, 160, 161, 166-168, 173, and
190-192 (depending from claim 153), which have similar claim language
and which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 153.

Claims 174-176, 178-182, and 186
Appellant contends Herz discloses that the “data collection memory
stores customer profile information, rather than content information
associated with a set of media channels” (App. Br. 12). Appellant argues
that “the content information [of Herz] has not been received from a
different source than the programming” (id.). Appellant contends further
that since “Herz itself makes a distinction between information indicative of
a show’s content and a user’s viewing history … one skilled in the art would
consider these as different types of information” (App. Br. 13).
However, the Examiner finds that Herz discloses “[t]he profile which
is created from the viewing histories being received at the headend … is then
transmitted from the headend to the STB” (Ans. 20-21). The Examiner
interprets “the profile coming from the Data Collection Unit (508) and the
programming coming from the PROGRAM SOURCES (402) [disclosed in
Herz] as being received from different sources” (Ans. 21). The Examiner
notes that “the profile information would include information about what
programs should be presented to the user, which could be in the form of
EPG data” (id.).
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

11
Appellant’s argument regarding the requirement of “information
indicative of a show’s content” is not commensurate in scope with the
specific language of claim 174 (App. Br.13). In particular, claim 174 does
not recite such “show’s content [data]” as Appellant argues.
Claim 174 does not place any limitation on what “content source” and
“content information” mean, include, or represent, other than the content
source is different from the first type of media source and the content
information is associated with the first set of data from the first type of
media source. Appellant’s support in the Specification discloses that the
program guide server’s data is an additional media source that is used to
generate a surflist from the user’s viewing pattern (FF 1; App. Br. 4). Thus,
we give “receiving at the media processing system of a display device, from
a content source different than the first type of media source, content
information associated with the first set” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as receiving data from any media source that is related to the
data from another media source, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 174.
Herz discloses that the video program material and the associated
content profiles created from the viewing histories are received at the
headend and then transmitted to the STB (FF 5). The processor within the
STB receives EPG listing information from the display guide to determine
an agreement matrix including a list of “preferred channel selections” or
“virtual channels” (FF 6). We find that the source that provides the video
program material (the headend) is different from the source that provides the
EPG listing (the display guide). We also find that EPG listing comprises
data related to the video program material of this other source. That is, we
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

12
find that “receiving at the media processing system of a display device, from
a content source different than the first type of media source, content
information associated with the first set” reads on Herz’s receipt of the EPG
listing information.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 174 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Goldschmidt in view of Herz. Further, claims 175, 176, 178-182, and 186
(depending from claim 174), which include similar claim language and
which are not argued separately, fall with representative claim 174.

Claims 156, 162-165, 169, 177, 183-185, and 187
Appellant argues that claims 156, 162-165, 169, 177, 183-185, and
187 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with
respect to claims 153 and 174 (App. Br. 17-18). In particular, Appellant
contends that “Proehl does not remedy the deficiencies of Herz and
Goldschmidt” (App. Br. 17); “Ellis and Snook do not remedy the
deficiencies of Herz and Goldschmidt” (App. Br. 18); “Ellis does not
remedy the deficiencies of Herz and Goldschmidt” (id.); and “Newberry
does not remedy the deficiencies of Herz and Goldschmidt” (id.).
As noted supra, however, we do not find any deficiencies with respect
to the combined teachings of Goldschmidt and Herz. Therefore, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 156 and 177 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Goldschmidt in view of Herz and Proehl; of claims 162, 163, and 183 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goldschmidt in view of Herz, Ellis, and Snook; of
claims 164, 165, 184, and 185 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goldschmidt in
Appeal 2010-008427
Application 09/908,039

13
view of Herz and Ellis; and of claims 169 and 187 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Goldschmidt in view of Herz and Newberry.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 153-157, 160-169,173-187, and
190-192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

peb