Ex Parte Arriola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

13442560 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017)

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.
13/442,560 04/09/2012 George Arriola 020699-108400US 1220
102383 7590 11/08/2017
Trellis; TP T aw Omim/ Sonv Pnm
EXAMINER
1900 Embarcadero Road, Suite 109
Palo Alto, CA 94303
CHEN, CAI Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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):
docket@trellislaw.com
megan@trellislaw.com
ann@trellislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE ARRIOLA, CARSTEN SCHWESIG, and
GEORGE WILLIAMS
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,5601
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics
Inc. as the real parties in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “an application and corresponding user
interface [that] can combine consumed content and web-based information
that is related to specific user interests.” Spec. 113. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling a user interface, the method
comprising:
displaying a plurality of objects on a display screen,
wherein each of the plurality of objects represents media content;
accepting, by a computing device, a signal indicating that
a user has selected an object from the plurality of objects;
determining personal relevancy data associated with the
user-selected object, wherein the personal relevancy data is
determined by using a recommendation engine, configured to
provide a recommendation regarding the user-selected object,
and at least in part by accessing content from a social network,
and wherein the personal relevancy data includes data about the
user-selected object;
playing the media content represented by the user-selected
object, wherein the media content is displayed in a background
on the display screen; and
displaying the personal relevancy data in a foreground on
the display screen.
Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Ellis
Ellis (“Ellis ’940”)
US 2003/0020744 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
US 2003/0146940 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
US 2014/0208367 A1 Jul. 24, 2014DeWeese
2
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—10, 12—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over DeWeese and Ellis. Final Act. 4—7.
Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeWeese, Ellis, and Ellis ’940. Final Act. 7—8.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding DeWeese and Ellis
teach or suggest:
determining personal relevancy data associated with the user-
selected object, wherein the personal relevancy data is
determined by using a recommendation engine, configured to
provide a recommendation regarding the user-selected object,
and at least in part by accessing content from a social network,
as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding DeWeese teaches or
suggests “wherein the determining the personal relevancy data further
comprises using an activity log of the user,” as recited in claim 2?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding DeWeese teaches or
suggests “wherein the determining the personal relevancy data further
comprises filtering content from the social network by using the
recommendation engine,” as recited in claim 3?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding DeWeese teaches or
suggests “wherein the displaying the personal relevancy data comprises
displaying a navigation menu in the foreground of the display screen,” as
recited in claim 4?
3
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
ANALYSIS
First Issue—Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds DeWeese teaches
“determining personal relevancy data associated with the user-selected
object, wherein the personal relevancy data is determined by using a
recommendation engine . . . and at least in part by accessing content from a
social network.” Final Act. 4 (citing DeWeese 137—139 and Fig. 16).
More specifically, the Examiner finds the chat comments shown in Figure
16 are “personal relevancy data.” Id. The Examiner further finds the chat
comments are associated with a news program selected by the user, and are,
therefore “personal relevancy data associated with the user-selected object.”
Id\ see also Ans. 8.
The Examiner further finds the chat comments/personal relevancy
data are “determined by using a recommendation engine . . . and at least in
part by accessing content from a social network.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner explains that the DeWeese teaches the set top box system filtering
chat messages so only desired chat group messages are displayed to the user.
Ans. 8—9. The Examiner finds this filtering process is a recommendation
performed by a recommendation engine. Final Act. 4 (“the chat requests are
being filtered such that it is same as being recommended”); Ans. 8 (citing
DeWeese Tflf 90-91 and Fig. 13).
The Examiner acknowledges DeWeese does not teach “configured to
provide a recommendation regarding the user-selected object.” Final Act. 5.
For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Ellis, finding it teaches providing
recommendations regarding user selected objects because it recommends
specific programs based on the viewing history of the user. Final Act. 5
4
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
(citing Ellis Fig. 20a); Ans. 9 (citing Ellis Figs. 20a—20b, 24, || 112, 126—
127). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to combine DeWeese
and Ellis in order to increase a viewer’s viewing experience. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because the Examiner is
“essentially pointing to one element —the ‘filtered’ chat group — as the
source of the personal relevancy data, whereas the claim requires that there
be two sources, a recommendation engine and a social network.” Br. 11.
Appellants further argue DeWeese’s filtering of chat messages cannot be
properly considered a “recommendation,” and even if it were, any such
“recommendation” is not a “recommendation regarding the media content
being viewed,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 11—12. According to Appellants,
the chat examples provided in DeWeese are merely “discussions of the topic
being covered by the news program being viewed . . . [and] [t]here is no
teaching or suggestion that any of the chat comments include a
recommendation of that news program.” Br. 12. Appellants also argue the
Examiner’s erroneously relies on Ellis because “[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion anywhere in Ellis[] that personal relevancy data are determined
with the use of any social network, let alone with the use of a
recommendation engine and a social network, as the claim recites.” Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are not
commensurate with the broad scope of the argued limitation. Appellants
argue the claim requires two sources for the “personal relevancy data,” and
the Examiner improperly relies on a single aspect of DeWeese (the chat
functionality) as teaching each source. However, the language of the claim
requires only that the personal relevancy data is determined by using a
recommendation engine, and determined, in part, by accessing content from
5
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
a social network. As such, we do not see any requirement in the claims that
the “determining personal relevancy data” and the “accessing content from a
social network” limitations must be performed separately by separate system
components, and we do not find this argument persuasive of Examiner error.
We are also not persuaded the Examiner’s reliance on DeWeese’s chat
functionality is misplaced. As noted above, Appellants also argue the
DeWeese’s filtering of chat messages cannot be properly considered a
“recommendation,” and even if it were, any such “recommendation” is not a
“recommendation regarding the media content being viewed,” as recited in
claim 1. Br. 11—12. As explained by the Examiner, when a user selects a
program to watch, such as the news program 315 shown in DeWeese
Fig. 16, the set top box determines a related chat to present and asks the user
to join. DeWeese Fig. 13. By presenting the program-related specific chat,
for the user to join, the set top box provides a recommendation regarding the
user-selected object (i.e. the news program). Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that Ellis teaches the use of recommendations regarding user-
select objects. In particular, as shown in Figure 20a of Ellis, a
recommendation is shown that is based on the viewing history of the user,
which includes the currently viewed program. Ellis Fig. 20a, Ull 1—112.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ellis is
deficient because it does not teach “that personal relevancy data are
determined with the use of any social network.” Br. 13. The Examiner
relies on Ellis only for disclosing “provide a recommendation regarding the
user-selected object.” As such, this argument contests a finding not made by
the Examiner. Because we are not persuaded by Appellants arguments, we
6
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and also of independent claims 9 and 20 for
which Appellants present the same arguments.
Second Issue—Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the additional limitation
“wherein the determining the personal relevancy data further comprises
using an activity log of the user.” Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting
claim 2, the Examiner finds DeWeese discloses this limitation, citing Figure
9 and Figure 16. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue DeWeese does not teach the limitation because
DeWeese teaches only the “display of an activity log,” and does not teach
“determining personal relevancy data using an activity log,” as recited in
claim 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains DeWeese illustrates that the previous chat comments
made are an activity log, as they reflect previous chat activity of the user.
Ans. 10. We agree with this explanation. The prior chat comments are used
to determine “personal relevancy data” because they are used to populate the
chat windows for the chat session. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 2, and also of claim 13 for which Appellants present the same
arguments.
Third Issue—Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and recites the addition limitation
“wherein the determining the personal relevancy data further comprises
filtering content from the social network by using the recommendation
engine.” Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner
7
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
relies on DeWeese, citing its description of filtering operations. Final Act. 5
(citing DeWeese 137—139).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the filtering taught in
DeWeese “relates to filtering the chat requests, or admissions of individuals
to the chat network, not filtering the chat comments (content) from the chat
group.” Br. 13—14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As explained by the
Examiner, when a user selects a television program for viewing, DeWeese
teaches that the system filters out chat groups based on user preferences.
Ans. 10 (citing DeWeese H 91, 137—138). DeWeese states the set top box
“may use this data [user preferences] for filtering chat requests that are
related to television programs, channels, or categories of television programs
that a user is interested in.” DeWeese 1138. We discern no error in the
Examiner’s finding that by filtering chat requests, DeWeese teaches filtering
content from the social network. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 3. For the same
reason, we also sustain the rejection of claim 14, for which Appellants
present the same argument.
Fourth Issue—Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the additional limitation
“wherein the displaying the personal relevancy data comprises displaying a
navigation menu in the foreground of the display screen.” Br. 17 (Claims
Appendix). In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner relies again on DeWeese.
Final Act. 5 (citing DeWeese Fig. 16). The Examiner provides additional
explanation in the Answer, explaining that the chat window interface
depicted in Figure 16 is a navigation menu “because it allows the user to
8
Appeal 2017-005795
Application 13/442,560
toggle the menu from a chat windows of one quadrant [el. 316] to another
chat window from [anjother quadrant [el. 317, 318.]” Ans. 11 (citing
DeWeese Fig. 16,1122).
Appellants argue DeWeese fails to teach the limitation of claim 4
because Figure 16 “simply shows chat screens and the TV program; no
navigation menu of any sort is displayed in any part of the display screen.”
Br. 14. We disagree.
As explained by the Examiner, the ability to toggle between different
chat windows allows the user to navigate among the displayed content on
the screen. As such, we find this capability teaches, or at least renders
obvious, a “displaying a navigation menu in the foreground of the display
screen.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4. For the same reason,
we also sustain the rejection of claim 15, for which Appellants present the
same argument.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not present separate arguments for patentability for any
of the remaining dependent claims. As such, each of these claims falls with
their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9