Ex Parte Goldey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

11463214 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
11/463,214 08/08/2006 Greg Goldey ES-0406.1 (290110.403) 6567
70336 7590 09/28/2017
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRANG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
Patentlnfo @ SeedIP. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG GOLDEY, CASEY MANUEL PAIZ,
KERRY PHILIP LANGLOYS MILLER, JOHN CARD, III,
DAVID CHRISTOPHER ST. JOHN-LARKIN, SCOTT HIGGINS, HUGH
AARON SELWAY, and DANIEL MARK OVERBAUGH
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,2141
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1,2, 11, 13, 14, and 21-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.
2 Claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, 15-20 have been cancelled. Claims 6 and 7 have
been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected
invention.
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
Appellants’ invention is a system and method for transmitting a
composite channel to a receiver, which may be a static channel that contains
different original channels of content in different locations on a displayed
page, or may be a dynamic channel that is processed by the receiver to
display multiple different video streams on a single display device. The
satellite television distributor forms the composite channel prior to its
transmission. Creation of the composite display includes creating
background, frames, and interactive elements of the display. See Abstract;
Spec. 14, 15.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method executable by a converter device, the
method comprising:
receiving a user command to display a composite channel, the
composite channel renderable to display simultaneously a plurality of
different video streams in different regions of a display device;
upon receiving the user command, tuning to the composite channel on
a single carrier signal transmitted from a satellite television distributor, the
composite channel being formed prior to transmission from the satellite
television distributor, the composite channel including video data of the
plurality of different video streams encoded as one channel;
processing the video data included in the composite channel to create
a composite display, the composite display including interactive elements
for the display device, wherein processing the video data included in the
single composite channel to create a composite display further comprises
creating background, frames and interactive elements of the display;
receiving on the single carrier signal from the satellite television
distributor, a plurality of audio streams associated with the video streams,
the audio streams encoded in the composite channel;
receiving on the single carrier signal from the satellite television
distributor, video frame data associated with the video streams the video
frame data encoded in the composite channel; and
transmitting the composite display and one of the plurality of audio
streams to the display device.
2
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Niijima US 5,903,314 May 11, 1999
Claims 1,2, 11, 13, 14, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Niijima.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 10, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb.
15, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 20, 2016) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does Niijima disclose, upon receiving a user command, tuning to a
composite channel on a single carrier signal transmitted from a satellite
television distributor, the composite channel being formed prior to
transmission from the satellite television distributor as recited in claim 1 ?
2. Does Niijima disclose processing the video data included in the
composite channel, including creating background, frames, and interactive
elements of the display as recited in claim 1?
3. Does Niijima disclose receiving an interactive software module on
the single carrier channel as recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,2,11,13,14,21-23, and 26
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Niijima
discloses “upon receiving the user command, tuning the composite channel
on a single carrier signal transmitted from a satellite television distributor,
3
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
the composite channel being formed prior to transmission from the satellite
television distributor.” Appeal Br. 13.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We find that Niijima
teaches producing six “multi-screens” each composed of nine reduced
screens of different programs. Niijima col. 7:29-41. Those six multi-
screens are then multiplexed so that they may be transmitted by one
transmission channel. Niijima col. 7:42-45. On the reception side, the data
of those “six original broadcasting channels” are separated. Niijima col.
7:52-57. A region of 3x3 reduced screens (i.e., one of the six 3x3 channels)
is selected and displayed. Niijima col. 7:63-65.
In Niijima, then, upon receiving a user command, the composite
channel (of 3x3 reduced screens) is tuned on a single carrier signal and
transmitted from a satellite television distributor, the composite channel
being formed prior to transmission.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Niijima does not
disclose the limitation at issue because “the individual screens of this
‘composite channel’ of Niijima are separated and stored in virtual frame
memory on the reception side before any user command.” Appeal Br. 13.
The claims do not contain any limitations that would preclude any such
intermediate step by Niijima.
Appellants further argue that Niijima fails to disclose “wherein
processing the video data ... to create a composite display . . . further
comprises creating background.” Appeal Br. 18. We are not persuaded by
this argument, because we agree with the Examiner that the sections
included in Figure 20 of Niijima, categorizing channels as “Movie,”
“Sports,” or “News” correspond to the “background” recited in claim 1. See
4
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
Niijima Fig. 20 and col. 22:64 — col. 23:9. Appellants’ Reply Brief
argument that these portions of the screen shown in Figure 20 are
“foreground images” is not well taken. Appellants cite no evidence in
support of the allegation that News, Sports, and Movie in Figure 20 should
be considered foreground rather than background, and cite no definition of
“background” in the Specification that would militate against the Examiner’s
finding.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants argue that Niijima
fails to disclose “receiving, by the converted device, a first user input
selecting the composite channel for display on the display device.” Appeal
Br. 14. We agree with the Examiner that Niijima teaches that the data of six
multi-screens are transmitted by one transmission channel (by a carrier from
one transponder), and that Niijima receives a user input for selecting the
composite channel for display on the display device. Ans. 11; Niijima col.
19:34-54, col. 7:52-65.
Claims 24 and 25
Claim 24, dependent from claim 1, recites “receiving an interactive
software module on the single carrier signal,” and “upon receiving the user
command, executing the interactive software module.” Claim 25 depends
from claim 24.
The Examiner finds that Niijima anticipates this claim limitation
because in Niijima, “if the select button 131 is manually operated vertically
... in order to settle selection of the television program while the cursor 201
is positioned at the desired reduced screen, the CPU 29 sends an instruction
to the front end circuit 20 to receive the program of a channel linked to the
selected reduced screen.” Niijima col. 22:65-23:6; Ans. 12. The Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
finding is erroneous because the cited portion of Niijima does not disclose
receiving an interactive software module on the single carrier signal. While
Niijima discloses a CPU executing some sort of software, Niijima does not
disclose from whence the software came, let alone that it arrived via the
claimed single carrier signal. We agree with Appellants that software
already existing on the reception apparatus may very well be the cause of
CPU 29 sending an instruction to the front end circuit. See Reply Br. 7.
We find that Niijima does not disclose all the limitations of claims 24
and 25. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection.
CONCLUSION
1. Niijima discloses, upon receiving a user command, tuning to a
composite channel on a single carrier signal transmitted from a satellite
television distributor, the composite channel being formed prior to
transmission from the satellite television distributor as recited in claim 1.
2. Niijima discloses processing the video data included in the
composite channel, including creating background, frames, and interactive
elements of the display as recited in claim 1.
3. Niijima does not disclose receiving an interactive software module
on the single carrier channel as recited in claim 24.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,2, 11, 13, 14, 21-23, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
6
Appeal 2017-005422
Application 11/463,214
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-IN-PART
7