Ex Parte Bonovich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

13492517 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/492,517 06/08/2012
20991 7590 07111/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Earl J. Bonovich
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PD-211053 1446
EXAMINER
DANG,HUNGQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EARL J. BONOVICH and CHARLES W. BEESON
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-26, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Final Act. l; App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to displaying schedule recording events on a
1 The real party in interest is identified as DIRECTV Group, Inc. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
second screen device that includes a controller and a display wherein
scheduled recording event conflicts are identified. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the matter on appeal
(disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
receiving scheduled recording data from a first receiving
device at a second screen device, said scheduled recording data
comprising a plurality of scheduled recording events;
displaying the scheduled recording events on a calendar
screen display that simultaneously displays at least three
consecutive days, each day having a plurality of timeslots, said
scheduled recording events displayed in multiple timeslots for
the at least three days;
determining a conflict between at least two scheduled
recording events based on the scheduled recording data; and
displaying a screen indicator at the second screen device
indicative of the conflict.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knudson et al. (US 2005/0273819 Al;
published Dec. 8, 2005) ("Knudson") and Cary (US 2005/0222971 Al;
published Oct. 6, 2005). Final Act. 2--4.
Claim 2 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, and Nakano (US 2010/0014831 Al;
published Jan. 21, 2010). Final Act. 5---6.
Claim 4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, and Uchida et al. (US 2002/0049620 Al;
published Apr. 25, 2002) ("Uchida"). Final Act. 4--7.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, and Bhogal et al. (US 2010/0202754 Al;
published August 12, 2010) ("Bhogal"). Final Act. 7.
Claims 11-12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, and Bhogal. Final act 7-9.
Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Bhogal, and Uchida. Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 14--15, 17-19, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, and Eguchi et al. (US
Patent 7,076,152 81; issued Jul. 11, 2006). ("Eguchi"). Final Act. 10-13.
Claims 16, 20-21, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, and Uchida.
Final Act. 13-14.
Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, and Bhogal. Final Act. 14
3
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
Claim 24 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, and Nakano. Final Act. 15
Claim 26 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, and Morris et al. (US Patent
7,822,428 81; Oct. 26, 2010) ("Morris"). Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner makes a factual error in finding
Knudson discloses the claim 1 limitation "receiving scheduled recording
data from a first receiving device at a second screen device, said scheduled
recording data comprising a plurality of scheduled recording events." App.
Br. 7-8 (citing Fig. 10, screen 130; i-f 70). According to Appellants,
Knudson's screen 130 is a reminder screen and not for scheduled recording
events. Id.
The Examiner finds the set-up for scheduled recording is similar to
the set-up for reminders shown in Figure 10. Ans. 17 (citing i-f 88; Fig. 12).
Specifically, Knudson explicitly states "[c]urrent recordings screen 170,
similar to current reminders screen 130 of Fig. 10, may contain a list of all
the user's currently scheduled recordings ... " Id. The Examiner further
finds:
Examiner used Fig. 10 for illustration since it has more entries
thus being able to show a better view of a calendar. If the user
schedules the same contents at the same time as he or she sets the
reminders in Fig. 10, the content of Fig. 12 would have been the
same as those shown in column "Program", "Episodes", and
"Submitted" of Fig. 10. In that view, each entry in Fig. 10 is a
scheduled recording event similar to that of Fig. 12.
Ans. 17.
4
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and, instead, agree
with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue Cary does not teach the limitation "displaying the
scheduled recording events on a calendar screen display that simultaneously
displays at least three consecutive days, each day having a plurality of
timeslots, said scheduled recording events displayed in multiple timeslots for
the at least three days." App. Br. 8-10. According to Appellants, "Cary is
silent as to displaying scheduled recording events on the display of FIG. 10"
and "is also silent as to displaying scheduled recording events on a calendar
screen display that simultaneously displays at least three consecutive days,
each day having a plurality of timeslots." Id. at 9, emphasis omitted.
Appellants argue, "[w]hile FIG. 11 of Cary illustrates more than three
consecutive days, the Examiner fails to recognize that each of the days
shown in FIG. 11 of Cary do not have a plurality of timeslots." Id. at 10,
emphasis omitted.
Appellants further argue the "Examiner picked and chose various
teachings from various references and combined those teachings in ways
that were not contemplated by the references themselves and that would
have not been contemplated by one of skill in the art at the time of the
invention." Id. at 10.
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
[E]ach entry in the calendar shown in Fig. 10 of Cary is a
scheduled event. As discussed in Knudson, each of the entry in
the calendar shown in the screen of Fig. 10 (or Fig. 12) is a
scheduled recording event (Fig. 10 is used for illustration since
Knudson teaches it is the same for recording [and] scheduling).
Therefore, the calendar shown in Fig. 10 of Carey can be
incorporated into the screen shown in Fig. 10 or Fig. 12 of
5
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
Knudson to enhance the user interface of the system by providing
the user with a better view of the calendar and each scheduled
recording events. While Fig. 10 of Cary illustrates a view in
which only two days with timeslots are shown. Fig. 11 illustrates
a view in which all days of a week are shown without clearly
showing the timeslots in each day. Therefore, one skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made would have been
motivated to modify the teachings Cary by incorporating the
whole week view of Fig. 11 to a timeslot view shown in Fig. 10
to enhance the view of the screen, in which all days of a week
are shown with timeslots and scheduled events, and when
incorporated into the screen shown in Fig. 10 or Fig. 12 of
Knudson, each of the scheduled events is a scheduled recording
events. Thus, the proposed combination of Knudson and Cary
clearly teaches each and every limitation[ s] of the claim.
Ans. 18-19; See also Final Act. 2--4 ("One of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made would have been motivated to further
incorporate the teachings of Cary into the method as previously proposed to
further enhance the user interface").
Appellants' arguments assert an unreasonably narrow teaching of the
cited references, and Appellants argue the references individually whereas
the rejection is based on the combination of the references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)( "[O]ne cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references" (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
6
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was "uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over
the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have
Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which
our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight."
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
7
Appeal2014-008258
Application 13/492,517
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims
2-26 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8