Ex Parte Dubin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14011659 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/011,659 08/27/2013
29989 7590 07/02/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Jonathan Dubin
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.
49490-0020 4913
EXAMINER
BARRETT,RYANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN DUBIN, KUNALDEEP MALIK, GIDEON YU,
PARAAG MARATRE, DOUG GARLAND, MITCH HUANG,
CHRIS GILES, MARTIN MANVILLE, MARK KILGORE, and
PA TRICK WEISS
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 3-12, 16-25, and 27-34, which are all
the claims pending in the application. Claims App 'x. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VenueNext Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed April
14, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 18, 2017; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 31, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed December 29, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed
August 27, 2013.
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "techniques for displaying a scrolling
summary of game plays associated with a sporting event in mobile
computing devices." Spec. ,r 2. "A play may be a series of movements by at
least one player, frequently in concert with a team of players, to score points,
achieve a goal, or advance the position of a team, ball, puck, or other
object(s)." Spec. ,r 4. According to Appellants, "each play event of the
plurality of play events comprises a game clock time, a description, and
identifies a sports team of a plurality of sports teams; for each play event in
the plurality of play events: generating a graphical tile that is associated with
the play event." Spec. ,r 25. "The [] graphical tile may be [] displayed in
the graphical tile list in a position based, at least in part, on the new game
clock." Spec. ,r 28. "In some embodiments, the graphical tile list may be a
scrollable list of graphical tiles ... A scroll bar adjacent to the scrollable list
of graphical tiles may be caused to be displayed in the graphical user
interface. The scroll bar may represent at least a portion of a time duration of
the sporting event." Spec. ,r 29; see also ,r,r 70, 105-106
Claims 31 and 32 are independent. Representative claim 31 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
31. A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of play events associated with a live
sporting event, wherein each play event of the plurality of play
events comprises a game clock time, a description, and identifies
a sports team of a plurality of sports teams, wherein each of the
plurality of play events is independently and sequentially
received from one or more server computers in real time, wherein
at least one play event of the plurality of play events contains an
importance indicator that indicates an important play;
for one or more play events in the plurality of play events:
2
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
generating, in real time and responsive to receiving the
play event, a graphical tile that is associated with the play
event; and
configuring an appearance of the graphical tile based,
at least in part, on the description and the sports team of the
play event;
generating a super graphical tile that summarizes a
plurality of portions of the live sporting event and includes,
nested within the super graphical tile, a first graphical tile that
corresponds to a first portion of the live sporting event and a
second graphical tile that corresponds to a second portion of the
live sporting event;
automatically causing to append said super graphical tile
to the display of a graphical tile list in a graphical user interface
of a mobile computing device, wherein:
before said generating said super graphical tile and
after said causing to append, the graphical tile list includes a
same one or more of the graphical tiles listed in an order
determined based on the game clock time in the play event
associated with each graphical tile including a particular
graphical tile, and
the one or more graphical tiles include the super
graphical tile;
generating a scroll bar that represents the elapsed time
duration of the live sporting event and having a selectable
indicator that may be used to scroll through the graphical tiles
and that visually indicates which portion of the elapsed time
duration of the live sporting event corresponds to graphical tiles
that are visible;
wherein whether a particular play event of the plurality of
play events contains an importance indicator that indicates an
important play determines at least one of:
whether or not to perform generating a particular
graphical tile that is associated
with the particular play event, or
3
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
a particular appearance of an icon on at least one of:
the particular graphical tile or the scroll bar;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
Appeal Br. 23-25 (Claims App'x).
Jain
Clausi
Moore
Lee
Chow
Katinsky
Evidence Considered
us 6,144,375
US 2007/0300157 Al
US 2011/0246889 Al
US 2012/0179969 Al
US 2013/0086501 Al
US 2003/0137531 Al
Nov. 7, 2000
Dec. 27, 2007
Oct. 6, 2011
Jul. 12, 2012
Apr. 4, 2013
Jul. 24, 2003
Elliot, "The Symbology of the New Red ESPN Gamecast Own Goal
Icon," October 12, 2011.
Nessman, "ESPN Gamecast a Sweet Way To Keep Up With a Game,"
January 23, 2012.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claims 3, 7-9, 16, 20-22, and 31-32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable overNessman, Clausi, Elliott, and
Chow. Final Act. 2-23.
(2) Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nessman, Clausi, Elliott, Chow, and Katinsky. Final Act.
23-26.
(3) Claims 5, 6, 11, 18, 19, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable overNessman, Clausi, Elliott, Chow,
and Moore. Final Act. 26-49.
4
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
(4) Claims 10, 12, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nessman, Clausi, Elliott, Chow, and Jain. Final
Act. 49--55.
(5) Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nessman, Clausi, Elliott, Chow, Moore, and Katinsky.
Final Act. 55---60.
(6) Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nessman, Clausi, Elliott, Chow, and Lee. Final Act. 60-
63.
ANALYSIS
Claims 31 and 3 2
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 31 and, similarly
claim 32, the Examiner finds the combination ofNessman, Clausi, Elliott,
and Chow teaches all of the limitations of the claimed method. Final Act. 2-
8. For example, the Examiner finds Nessman teaches major aspects of
claims 31 and 32 in the context of ESPN Gamecast to deliver real time play-
by-play and stats for a sporting event between sports teams (NFL teams) and
to allow fans (users) to track their favorite team on gameday with current
drive information and statistics at their fingertips, including the following
features:
"receiving a plurality of play events associated with a live
sporting event, wherein each play event of the plurality of play
events comprises . . . a description, and identifies a sports team
of a plurality of sports teams, wherein each of the plurality of
play events is independently and sequentially received from one
or more server computers in real time ... (see Nessman 2:5---6);
for one or more play events in the plurality of play events:
5
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
generating, in real time and responsive to receiving the
play event, a graphical tile that is associated with the play
event (see Nessman 2:5---6); and
configuring an appearance of the graphical tile based,
at least in part, on the description and the sports team of the
play event (see Nessman's figure, "Current Drive" and
"Previous Drive");
automatically causing to append said super graphical tile
to the display of a graphical tile list in a graphical user interface
of a mobile computing device (see Nessman 2:5---6), wherein:
before said generating said graphical tile and after said
causing to append, the graphical tile list includes a same one
or more of the graphical tiles listed in an order determined
based on the game clock time in the play event associated
with each graphical tile including a particular graphical tile
(see [Nessman's] figure, "Current Drive" and "Previous
Drive"); and
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices ([see Nessman 1 :4---6] "Last night I headed
over to ESPN and logged onto Gamecast").
Final Act. 3--4 (citingNessman 1:4--6, 2:5---6, figure).
Nessman's ESPN Gamecast is reproduced below:
6
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
Nessman's ESPN Gamecast, reproduced above, delivers real time play-by-
play and stats for all NFL games and allows fans (users) to follow their
favorite team on gameday with current drive information and statistics at
their fingertips.
Because Nessman's ESPN Gamecast is a sketchy, single-page
publication without a complete description of all available statistics, game
clock time, and ancillary features, the Examiner relies on (1) Clausi for
expressly teaching the use of "a game clock time" included in each play
event (Final Act. 4 (citing Clausi ,r 76)); (2) Elliott for expressly teaching the
use of "an importance indicator" included in at least one play event to
indicate an important play (Final Act. 5 (citing Elliott's figure re: "New Red
ESPN Gamecast Own Goal Icon")); and (3) Chow for expressly teaching the
use of (i) "a super graphical tile that summaries a plurality of events" and (ii)
"a scroll bar that represents the elapsed time duration" (Final Act. 7 ( citing
Chow ,r,r 25, 27, Fig. 3)) to support the conclusion of obviousness.
7
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Nessman, Clausi, and Elliott. Nor do Appellants challenge the Examiner's
rationale for combining these references. Instead, Appellants contend Chow
does not teach the disputed limitation: "generating a scroll bar that
represents the elapsed time duration of the live sporting event" recited in
claim 31. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2. According to Appellants,
"a proper interpretation of this recitation is to provide or cause
displaying a graphical scroll bar that represents a time range that
dynamically increases as the live sporting event progresses. In
other words, if 26 minutes of a game have been played, then the
scroll bar permits scrolling through minutes 0-30 of the game. If
48 minutes have been played, then the scroll bar permits scrolling
through minutes 0-48. The time represented in the scroll bar and
its capacity for scrolling over a time range changes dynamically
as time passes in the game."
Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants acknowledge Chow teaches a timeline visualization
system, shown in Figure 3, for displaying one or more events within
timetime 300 and an overview panel 340 (showing years 2009-2011)
including an overview window 350 (showing year 2010) that corresponds to
a viewable portion oftimeline 300. Appeal Br. 7. However, Appellants
argue: (1) "Chow does not accommodate live data where events become
known only in real time as they occur"; (2) "[a]n event that is currently
rendered by Chow is not the same as an elapsed time duration of an event";
and (3) "Chow has no notion of live events that are ongoing and [as such]
cannot provide the dynamically changing scroll bar as claimed." Appeal Br.
7-8. According to Appellants, neither Chow's overview window 350 nor
timeline 300 has any relation to a duration of an event and "Chow lacks the
8
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
ability to represent elapsed time, because elapsed time for an event in
progress is not relevant to past events." Reply Br. 1-2.
In addition, Appellants argue there is no reason to combine Chow and
Nessman because: (1) "Chow frustrates the purpose ofNessman"; (2)
"Nessman frustrates the purposes of Chow"; and (3) "Chow and Nessman
are technically incompatible" and "have fundamentally different and
opposing principles of operation" "any combination of Chow and Nessman
requires changes of principles of operation." Appeal Br. 8-13. According
to Appellants, (1) Nessman displays a live event, whereas Chow displays a
past event; (2) Nessman refreshes automatically, whereas Chow waits for
user interaction; and (3) Chow and Nessman are not combinable because
Chow loads data in bulk and Nessman receives data in a stream. Appeal Br.
9-12.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3-8. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. At the outset,
we note Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). "The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference ... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Id. Consideration must be given to what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the
nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those
9
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
of ordinary skill in the art. In that regard, a skilled artisan is not compelled
to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Seigler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Chow teaches the use of a scroll
bar in the context of overview panel 340 in a timeline visualization system,
shown in Figure 3, including overview window 350 to allow a user to scroll
through a list of events within timeline 300. Chow ,r,r 25-37, 31.
Chow's Figure 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration:
310 320 300
\''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"" ! ,: .. ,.-z7'v~~i .. ~ ~~~-.,,.,--·-:x .~ -~ ·-..... :• :
t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'
Fig. 3
Chow's Figure 3, reproduced above, shows a timeline visualization system
for displaying overview panel 340 to provide an overview of timeline 300.
10
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
As shown in Chow's Figure 3, "a user can drag overview window 350
in a horizontal direction, through the use of a cursor control device, to
navigate timeline 300. Furthermore, according to the embodiment, overview
window 350 can change size depending on a zoom level of timeline 300. In
addition, overview window 350 can be resized by the user." Chow ,r 27.
We agree with the Examiner that Chow teaches a scroll bar that
reflects an elapsed time duration and having a selectable indicator ( overview
window 350) that visually indicates which portion of the elapsed time
duration corresponds to the graphical tiles (markers 360). See Chow Fig. 3,
,r 27. As previously discussed, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
findings that Nessman teaches a plurality of play events associated with a
live event and for one or more play events, generating a graphical tile
associated with the play event. Final Act. 3. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, when Chow's scroll bar with elapsed time duration and selectable
indicator is incorporated into Nessman's ESPN Gamecast for a live event
with play events associated with the live event, the Nessman-Chow
combination teaches generating a scroll bar that represents an elapsed time
duration of a live sporting event in the manner recited in Appellants' claim
31.
We also find that incorporating Chow's scroll bar into Nesssman's
ESPN Gamecast would further enhance ESPN Gamecast's ability to deliver
real time play-by-play and stats for all games and allow the fans (users) to
follow their favorite team on gameday with current drive information within
the confines of the game. As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that Nessman and Chow are incompatible and would frustrate
each other's purpose.
11
Appeal2017-010001
Application 14/011,659
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 31
and 32 and their respective dependent claims 3-12, 16-25, 27-30, and 33-
34, which Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-12, 16-25, and 27-
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 3-12,
16-25, and 27-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
12