Ex Parte Eastman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2010

10626244 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________

Ex parte NEIL S. EASTMAN, MICHAEL ZINGMAN,
and MICHELLE SAMMARTINO
______________

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-26, which are all of the pending claims.
An oral hearing was held on October 12, 2010.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

A. Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to a radio system and interface,
and more particularly to a computer-controlled radio and graphical user
interface. Specification [0001].3
Figure 3 is reproduced below.

2 “[A]rguments not presented in the brief or reply brief and made for the
first time at the oral hearing are not normally entitled to consideration.”
MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., rev. 7, July 2008) (citing In re Chiddix,
209 USPQ 78 (Comm’r Pat. 1980)).
3 References herein to Appellants’ Specification are to the Application as
filed rather than to corresponding Patent Application Publication
2005/0020238 A1.

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

3
Figure 3 shows the over-the-air protocol frame format 300 of the XM
Satellite Radio system (id. at [0026]). The frame can include, inter alia, a
broadcast information channel and/or can include, among any of the
channels 1-n, an Electronic Program Guide containing information about the
remaining channels in the frame (id.). This information can include
descriptors such as the song title, artist, composer, lyricist, label, album
name, genre (e.g., Latin), sub-genre (e.g., Salsa), length, lyric keywords, or
any combination thereof (id.).
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 shows a terrestrial-based radio communication system 200 in
accordance with the invention (id. at [0025]). Transmission station 202 can
be a repeater that retransmits received satellite broadcast signals (see id. at
[0024]) or can transmit signals using other transmission formats, such as FM
or other modulation techniques suitable for the transmission of digital audio
(id. at [0025]). Each of a plurality of receiver units (e.g., 100 and 110)
includes, inter alia, a receiver 203 and memories 210 and 212 and can be
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

4
coupled to a computer 214 having a display 215 (id.). Memory 212 stores a
“desired content” database including, for example, one or more favorite song
or artist lists or other descriptors as designated by a user (id. at [0028]).
Memory 210 stores associated channel information or a channel reference
table that is updated whenever receiving updated information (id.). In a
system using the XM frame 300 of Figure 3, the descriptors and other data
stored in memory 210 can be updated during every 432 millisecond frame
(id.).
Figure 5 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

5
Figure 5 is a graphical user interface (GUI4) illustrating a
simultaneous display of multiple channels in accordance with Appellants’
invention (id. at [0019]). The main screen of the GUI 500 is called the
Channel Guide screen, which lists all of the channels and what they are
currently playing (id. at 0038]). In this instance, there are six columns,
which display Channel Number, Channel Name, Artist, Song Title, Category
and Use % (the percentage of time spent listening to each channel) (id.).
GUI 500 can highlight a current user-selected channel as shown by the
highlighted item 580 (id. at [0029]).
Figure 7 is reproduced below.

4 Abbreviated “UI” in Appellants’ Specification (e.g., at [0032]).
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

6

Figure 7 shows the “favorite artists” function of the GUI (id. at
[0042]). A pop-up window 730 appears when a favorite artist is performing
on any of the plurality of available channels (id.).

B. The claims
The independent claims before us are claims 1, 13, 16, 20, 25, and 26,
of which claim 16 reads as follows:5

5 The copies of independent claims 1 and 13 in the Claims Appendix are
(Continued on next page.)
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

7
16. A method of representing a plurality of channels on a
display, comprising the steps of:
extracting data associated with each channel in the
plurality of channels from a data stream using a single digital
audio radio receiver;
enabling the selective display of the data associated with
each of the plurality of channels on a graphical user interface[;]
simultaneously updating and displaying of the associated
data for a selected plurality of channels among the plurality of
channels wherein the data associated with the plurality of
channels includes a plurality of channel numbers, a plurality of
artist names, a plurality of song titles, and a plurality of channel
names; and
selectively controlling a remotely coupled channel
decoder on a radio receiver via the graphical user interface.
Claims App. (Br. 9).6

incorrect. The Claims Appendix shows these claims as they were proposed
to be amended at pages 2 and 4 of the November 28, 2007, “Response to
Office Action” (hereinafter “Amendment”). This Amendment was refused
entry in the Advisory Action mailed on December 13, 2007. The
Examiner’s refusal to enter the Amendment is noted at pages 2-3 of the
Appeal Brief (“Br.”), filed March 25, 2008. At page 2 of the Answer mailed
on March 19, 2010, the Examiner states that Appellants’ description of the
status of the Amendment in the Brief is correct. Correct copies of claims 1
and 13 can be found at pages 2 and 4 of the “Response to Office Action”
filed July 5, 2007.
6 The first five pages of the Brief are numbered 1-5. The next five pages are
numbered “Page 1 of 5” through “Page 5 of 7.” The next page (the first
page of the Claims Appendix) is numbered “Page 6 of 6.” The next pages
are numbered 7-11. The last page (the Evidence Appendix and Related
Proceedings Appendix) is numbered “Claims Appendix: Page 1 of 1.”
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

8

C. The references
The Examiner’s rejections are based on the following references:
Rindsberg US 6,553,077 B2 Apr. 22, 2003
Marko US 2004/0049389 A1 Mar. 11, 2004
Turnbull US 2004/0196179 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Sezan US 7,194,687 B2 Mar. 20, 2007
Hilt US 2007/0118833 A1 May 24, 2007

D. The rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
based on the following references:
1. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 20-22, and 26 -- Hilt in view of Marko and
Rindsberg. Final Action 2, para. 1.
2. Claims 6 and 24 -- Hilt in view of Marko, Rindsberg, and Sezan.
Answer 7, para. 2.7
3. Claim 7 -- Hilt in view of Marko, Rindsberg, and Turnbull. Final
Action 6, para. 3.
4. Claim 13-15 -- Hilt in view of Marko. Id. at 6, para. 4.
5. Claims 16, 18, 23, and 25 -- Marko in view of Rindsberg. Id. at 8,
para. 5.8

7 Claim 24 was incorrectly grouped with claim 17 (which is rejected over
Marko in view of Rindsberg and Sezan) at page 9, paragraph 6 of the Final
Action.
8 Because claim 23 depends on claim 22, which stands rejected over Hilt in
(Continued on next page.)
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

9
6. Claim 17 -- Marko in view of Rindsberg and Sezan. Id. at 9,
para. 6.
7. Claim 19 -- Marko in view of Rindsberg and Turnbull. (Answer
11, para. 7.).9
In a “Remand to the Examiner” mailed December 1, 2009, a previous
Board panel explained, inter alia, that the discussion of “Ellis” and “Acker”
in the Answer mailed April 11, 2008, appears to be in error. The revised
Answer, mailed March 19, 2010, does not mention Ellis or Acker.

view of Marko and Rindsberg, we will treat claim 23 as rejected on that
ground.
9 Although claim 19 is not included in the statement of any rejection or
discussed in Final Action, that claim is included among the rejected claims
in the Office Action Summary page of the Final Action. As noted at “Page 3
of 7” of the Brief, claim 19 is similar to claim 7 in that both recite displaying
the signal strength of signals received from satellite and terrestrial sources,
for which teaching the Examiner relies on Turnbull in rejecting claim 7. As
a result, we do not agree with Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3-4) that the
Examiner entered a new ground of rejection when explaining in the Answer
that claim 19 stands rejected for obviousness over Marko in view of
Rindsberg (the basis for the rejection of parent claim 16) further in view of
Turnbull. The Examiner’s incorrect identification of the statutory basis for
this obviousness rejection as 35 U.S.C. § § 102(e) is a harmless error.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

10
THE ISSUES10
1. Whether Marko is available as a reference against Appellants’
claims.
2. The principal issue raised concerning the obviousness rejections is
whether the references disclose or suggest simultaneously displaying
information about a plurality of channels.

WHETHER MARKO IS AVAILABLE AS A REFERENCE
UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants, citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(c), argue that Marko cannot be
used as a reference in any rejection against Appellants’ claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Marko is under common assignment with the
present application, and only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).”
(Reply Br. 5.) The Reply Brief is accompanied by a copy of a USPTO
assignment record showing that the Marko application, when filed on
September 10, 2002, was assigned to XM Satellite Radio, Inc. (hereinafter
“XM”).
This argument is entitled to no consideration because it was not
necessitated by a new point in the Answer and thus should have been made

10 See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). Designated
precedential at
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/prec/index.jsp.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

11
in the opening Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74
(BPAI 2010) (“informative”11) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board
is not required to address an argument newly presented in the Reply Brief
that could have been presented in the principal Brief on Appeal).
We note that Appellants’ statement regarding common ownership
does not employ the “at the time the invention was made” language
specified in MPEP § 706(l)(1)(I) (rev. July 2008):
The burden of establishing that subject matter is
disqualified as prior art is placed on applicant once the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the
subject matter. For example, the fact that the reference and the
application have the same assignee is not, by itself, sufficient
evidence to disqualify the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(c). There
must be a statement that the common ownership was “at the time
the invention was made.”
See also MPEP § 706.02(l)(2)(II).
Marko has not been shown to be disqualified as a reference against
Appellants’ claims.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We begin our analysis of the rejections by noting that Appellants in
the Brief do not challenge the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of the references. Instead,

11 Designated “Informative” at
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp.

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

12
Appellants argue that the references fail to disclose or suggest all of the
claim limitations (Br. “Page 2 of 7,” “Page 4 of 7”).

A. Claims 16, 18, and 25 (Marko in view of Rindbserg)
Marko discloses a satellite radio communication system in which text
is transmitted to a receiver and then converted into speech in real time by a
text-to-speech converter. Marko [0008].
Figure 6 of Marko is reproduced below.

Figure 6 is a block diagram of a radio transmission source 400 in
accordance with Marko’s invention (id. at [0026]). Source 400 generates a
plurality of real-time digital audio channels, where each audio channel is
comprised of either (a) digital audio compressed with a first audio
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

13
compression algorithm or (b) streamed text intended (for example) for
playback with a text-to-speech converter (id.).
Figure 7 of Marko is reproduced below.

Figure 7 is a block diagram of Marko’s receiver (id. at [0020]). The
resultant signals from the audio decompressor 608, the speech decompressor
610, and the text-to-speech converter 612 may also contain “associated data”
in the form of text that can optionally be displayed via the display 617 (id. at
[0028]). This associated data can be “in the form of text information that is
associated with music, news, talk, or even the ‘text-to-speech’ channels and
essentially provides programming information such as channel [ID], artist
name, song title, news segment title, talk show guest name, weather location,
traffic location, and so on” (id.).
The Examiner found that Marko discloses claim 16’s “extracting,”
“enabling,” and “selectively controlling” steps but fails to disclose the
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

14
“simultaneously updating and displaying” step. Final Action 8, para. 5. The
Examiner and Appellants appear to agree that the “simultaneously updating
and displaying” step requires (1) simultaneously displaying associated data
for a plurality of channels and (2) updating that data simultaneously with its
display. The Examiner relies on Rindsberg for both of these teachings.
Rindsberg discloses a digital audio radio system and method that
enable a user to intelligently select desired content among the many channels
that will be available. Rindsberg, col. 2, ll. 1-4.
Figure 5 is reproduced below.

Figure 5 is a block diagram of a typical subscriber radio or receiver
unit 100 in accordance with Rindsberg’s invention (col. 4, ll. 16-18). The
storage media or memory 510 preferably stores a “desired content” database
512 that has, for example, a favorite song or artist list or other descriptors
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

15
(col. 4, ll. 23-25). Memory 514 preferably stores associated channel
information or a channel reference table that is updated whenever receiving
updated information in the current frame (col. 4, ll. 25-28). The receiver
unit 100 may also include a single button or keypad 517 that allows a user to
input his or her content preferences by a single key press (col. 4, ll. 36-39).
For example, a user listening to Aaron Copeland’s “Appalachian Spring” on
a channel 17 can press the button to enter descriptors into memory 510
indicating that the user prefers to listen to music by Aaron Copeland or to
American classical music, for example (col. 4, ll. 39-43). If the live
broadcast on channel 18 contains Aaron Copeland’s “Fanfare for the
Common Man” or channel 27 contains George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in
Blue,” these choices can be alerted to the user by display 518 (col. 4, ll. 43-
48).
The Examiner initially relied on Figure 6, which depicts the contents
of channel reference table 504, and the discussion of that table at column 3,
lines 41-48, and column 4, lines 1-10 and 49-61. Final Action 8, para. 5. In
response to Appellants’ argument that this table is not displayed and is not a
GUI (Br. “Page 2 of 7”), the Examiner at page 14 of the Answer now relies
on column 4, lines 16-61, including specifically column 4, lines 30-33,
which states that “[a] system controller 508 enables the routing of
information and audio to the user, either visually through a display 518 or
audibly through an audio output device 514 such as a speaker” (emphases
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

16
added).12 It is clear from the Examiner’s specific reliance on this sentence
and further reliance on lines 39-48 of column 4 that the Examiner is now
relying on Rindsberg’s above-noted example of using the display to alert the
user to the fact that channels 18 and 27 are currently carrying Copeland’s
“Fanfare for the Common Man” and Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue,”
respectively. Although Rindsberg does not state that both channel numbers
and their song information are displayed simultaneously, we are of the
opinion that it would have been obvious to display this information
simultaneously for the convenience of the user. Furthermore, in view of
Rindsberg’s disclosure that channel reference table 504 can contain
“updated” information for comparison with a user’s store preferences (col. 4,
ll. 51-53), it is apparent that the displayed channel numbers and song
information will be updated simultaneously with their display, as required by
the claim.
Appellants assert that the Examiner at pages 9-10 of the Answer relies
on Rindsberg for the “selectively controlling” step and argue that
“Rindsberg nowhere teaches selectively controlling a remotely coupled
channel decoder on a radio receiver via the graphical user interface. There is
no ‘remotely coupled channel decoder’ taught or suggested by Rindsberg.
Rindsberg is about customized selection of audio channels on a single radio
receiver.” (Reply Br. 11.) This argument is unpersuasive because the

12 In the quotations herein from the references, bolding of the reference
numerals is omitted.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

17
Examiner does not read the “selectively controlling” step on Rindsberg.
Instead, the Examiner reads this step on Marko at pages 9-10 of the Answer
and at page 8, paragraph 5, of the Final Action.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error by
the Examiner in rejecting claim 16 for obviousness over Marko in view of
Rindsberg. The rejection of claim 16 is therefore sustained, as is the
rejection of independent clam 25, as to which Appellants rely on their claim
16 arguments, and dependent claim 18, which is not separately argued. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

B. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 20-23, and 26 (Hilt in view of Marko and Rindsberg)
Appellants argue claims 1-5, 8-12, 20-22, and 26 as a group (Br.
“Page 1 of 5,” “Page 2 of 7”). Claim 23 is grouped with these claims for the
reasons given above. Claim 1 recites a “computer” in combination with a
radio receiver:13
1. A computer based multi-channel radio system,
comprising:
a computer coupled to a display and having a graphical
user interface; and
a single digital audio radio receiver coupled to the
computer for selectively receiving a plurality of channels and
data associated with the plurality of channels from a single data
stream over the air, wherein the graphic[al] user interface
selectively displays at least a portion of the data associated with

13 See July 5, 2007, “Response to Office Action,” at 2.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

18
the plurality of channels and wherein the data associated with
the plurality of channels includes a plurality of channel
numbers, a plurality of artist names, a plurality of song titles,
and a plurality of channel names and wherein such data
associated with the plurality of channels is simultaneously
updated and displayed.
The Examiner cites Hilt for a teaching of an XM radio system that
includes a computer 104 (Fig. 1) coupled to a display (Final Action 2,
para. 1; Answer 13). Hilt discloses an XM radio system that permits
bookmarking of music, news, and information and further permits searching
of an internet database by utilization of bookmarks. Hilt [0010].
Figure 1 of Hilt is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment in which an XM radio receiver 102
is communicatively connected to a client computer 104, which navigates
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

19
around a firewall and is communicatively connected to a server 106 via the
Internet 108 (id. at [0014], [0017]).
Figure 2 of Hilt is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a block diagram illustrating the elements of XM radio
bidirectional communications system 100 (id. at [0020]). In this
embodiment, a client application program 118 and a browser 114 (including
plug-in 116) reside on computer 104, which is depicted as separate from XM
radio receiver 102. In an alternative embodiment, client application program
118 and browser 114 (including plug-in 116) can be installed on XM radio
receiver 102 (id.).
In operation, XM radio receiver 102 receives a broadcast containing
service information that contains product IDs or bookmarks (id. at [0019]).
Specifically, the service information contains sixteen (16) bytes of data
comprising the artist name, song name, and some other possible identifier
information (id.). The bookmarks are numeric data uniquely identifying the
song or broadcast (id.). While listening to XM radio receiver 102 and
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

20
hearing music, news, or other information about which the user would like
further information, the user depresses a bookmark button 112 so as to
record the associated bookmark and/or a first set of data (id.). If the
recorded bookmark is “unresolved,” i.e., the bookmark is incomplete and/or
contains unresolved data, client application 118 uses browser 114 to access
the Internet in order to obtain a resolved, i.e., complete, bookmark (id. at
[0022]). Hilt, referring to Figure 3, further explains that “[c]lient application
118 thus updates the locally stored bookmarks with the resolved bookmarks
and displays this data to user 202 by step 222” (id. at [0023]).
As noted above, the Examiner in the Final Action relies on Hilt only
for a teaching of an XM radio system that includes a computer 104 (Fig. 1)
coupled to a display. Thus, the apparent effect of combining this teaching
with the above-discussed teachings of Marko and Rindsberg is to display
Rindsberg’s alert information on the screen of the computer rather than on
the screen of the radio receiver.
In the Brief, Appellants argue that “Hilt does not teach or suggest a
computer coupled to a display having a GUI where data associated with a
plurality of channels including channel numbers, artist names, song titles,
and channel names are simultaneously updated and displayed on the GUI of
the display of the computer.” (Br. “Page 1 of 5.”) In response, the
Examiner states, inter alia, that “in paragraph 20, Hilt discloses the XM
radio receiver to include a browser which reads on the limitation of GUI
interface.” (Answer 13, para. 1 (emphasis added).) We agree with
Appellants that reading the recited “graphical user interface” on the radio
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

21
receiver is at odds with the requirement of claim 1 that the recited “graphical
user interface” be part of the recited “computer,” which is separate from the
recited “radio receiver.” (See Reply Br. 7 (“The claimed GUI is used to
display non-audio data received from the radio receiver . . . .”).) However,
the above statement by the Examiner appears to be harmless error, i.e., not
essential to the rejection. The Examiner has no need to rely on Hilt for a
teaching of displaying channel information on a radio receiver because, as
noted above, the Examiner finds that display 518 in Rindsberg’s radio
receiver displays the alert information to the user. Also, to the extent that
the Examiner finds that Hilt’s browser 114 is a GUI, that finding is
unnecessary because Appellants did not deny in the Brief that Hilt’s
computer includes a GUI.
Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 7-8) that Hilt fails to display the type
of information required by the claim is unpersuasive because the Examiner
relies on Marko and Rindsberg for the type of information to display
(Answer 13-14).
Because Appellants have failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness over Hilt in view of Marko and
Rindsberg, we are sustaining the rejection of claim 1 and the rejection of
claims 2-5, 8-12, 20-22, and 26, which are argued as a group along with
claim 1. We are also sustaining the rejection on the same ground of
dependent claim 23, which is not separately argued and which, as noted
above, improperly stands rejected for obviousness over Marko on view of
Rindsberg.
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

22

C. Claims 13-15 (Hilt in view of Marko)
Claim 13 reads as follows:14
13. A computer based multi-channel radio, comprising:
a single digital audio radio receiver for receiving a
plurality of channels and data associated with the plurality of
channels over-the-air;
a channel decoder coupled to the radio receiver; and
a port for transmitting data associated with the plurality
of channels, transmitting an output signal representative of a
selected channel among the plurality of channels, and for
receiving control signals from a computer having a graphical
user interface, wherein the graphic user interface selectively
displays at least a portion of the data associated with the
plurality of channels simultaneously and [the] user selectively
controls the channel decoder by selecting the selected channel
on the graphical user display, wherein the data associated with
the plurality of channels includes a plurality of channel
numbers, a plurality of artist names, a plurality of song titles,
and a plurality of channel names.
Appellants argue that for the reasons given in discussing the other
rejections, “Hilt and Marko fail to teach, suggest, mention or contemplate a
plurality of channels that includes a plurality of channel numbers, a plurality
of artist names, a plurality of song names, etc. that are updated and displayed
simultaneously on a GUI in the context recited in claims 13-15.” (Br. “Page
4 of 7.”) This argument is unpersuasive of nonobviousness for two reasons.

14 See July 5, 2007, “Response to Office Action,” at 4.

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

23
First, claim 13 does not recite updating. Second, this argument apparently
assumes (incorrectly in our view) that the recited “computer based multi-
channel radio” (see preamble) includes the recited “computer having a
graphical user interface” for displaying data associated with a plurality of
channels in the claimed manner. However, the language of claim 13 is
broad enough to read on a radio receiver having a port that is merely capable
of being used to communicate with a computer having a GUI for displaying
data associated with a plurality of channels in the claimed manner.
The rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14 and 15, which
are not separately argued, is sustained.

D. Claims 6 and 24 (Hilt in view of Marko, Rindsberg, and Sezan)
Claim 6 reads as follows:
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user
interface enables the simultaneous viewing of a plurality of
channel numbers, a plurality of artist names, a plurality of song
titles, a plurality of channel names, a plurality of categories, and
a plurality of use percentages of the channels among the
plurality of channels.
Claims App. (Br. “Page 6 of 6” (emphasis added)). Claim 24 is similar.
Sezan discloses a system for audiovisual information browsing,
filtering, searching, archiving, and personalization. Sezan, col. 1, ll. 15-18.
In the Answer (at page 15, para. 2), the Examiner states that
Sezan teaches an audiovisual information management system and
therefore [is] in the same analogous art as Hilt, Marko and
Rindsberg. Further Sezan teaches a method of presenting a usage
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

24
history that is proportional to a measured percentage consumed by
a user of that particular program.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the
above teachings of Sezan to modified [sic] Hilt in order to provide
information of the most popular program viewed by the user.
Appellants’ argument that Marko is not available as a reference
(Reply Br. 9, para. III) is ineffective for the reasons given above. The only
other argument in the Reply Brief is that claims 6 and 24 are patentable over
the references for the same reasons as parent claims 1 and 20, respectively
(id.). This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given above in the
discussion of claims 1 and 20.
The rejection of claims 6 and 24 is therefore sustained.

E. Claim 17 (Marko in view of Rindsberg and Sezan)
Appellants make the same unpersuasive arguments with respect to
dependent claim 17 that they make with respect to claims 6 and 24. The
rejection of claim 17 is therefore affirmed.

F. Claim 7 (Hilt in view of Marko, Rindsberg, and Turnbull)
Claim 7 reads as follows:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user
interface enables the viewing of signal strength of a signal
received from a satellite signal and a terrestrial signal.
Claims App. (Br. 7).
Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

25
Turnbull discloses a rearview assembly includes a mounting structure
and a tri-band antenna module. Turnbull [0003]. The Examiner (Final
Action 6, para. 3) relies on paragraph 0087, which in describing display 45
of the rearview assembly (Fig. 10; [0084]-[0086]), explains that the
displayed information can include, for example, “telephone and voice signal
strength information.”
In the Brief, Appellants responded to the rejection of claim 7 by
arguing that it is patentable for the same reasons as parent claim 1 (Br. “Page
3 of 7”). Although Appellants in the Brief (id.) also describe the subject
matter of claim 7 (and similar claim 19), they do not assert that, or explain
why, that subject matter provides a separate basis for patentability.
We are therefore sustaining the rejection of claim 7 for the same
reasons that we are sustaining the rejection of claim 1.

G. Claim 19 (Marko in view of Rindsberg and Turnbull)
Claim 19 is similar to claim 7 but depends on claim 16.
Although Appellants in the Brief (at “Page 3 of 7”) describe the
subject matter of claim 19, they do not assert, or explain why, this subject
matter provides a separate basis for patentability.
The rejection of claim 19 is therefore sustained for the same reasons
as the rejection of parent claim 16.

Appeal 2010-010100
Application 10/626,244

26
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-26 are unpatentable over the
prior art 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc

KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036