Ex Parte IMAI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2017

12331944 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
12/331,944 12/10/2008 Daiji IMAI SJP-723-2463 3575
27562 7590 04/17/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
BANTAMOI, ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAIJIIMAI
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—24, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to “an electronic
program guide displaying system including [a] plurality of user terminals
each having a display on which a plurality of program information are
displayed in a matrix manner by taking one axis as a time axis and the other
axis as a broadcast station axis and a server performing data communication
with the plurality of user terminals via a network.” Spec. 1:14—18.2 The
Specification explains that a “server calculates a degree of popularity of each
program information on the basis of the results of the selections by the
respective user terminals, and transmits the degree of popularity to each user
terminal,” and “a display manner of each program information is changed on
the basis of the degree of popularity.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. An electronic program guide displaying system
comprising a plurality of user terminals each having a display
to display a plurality of program information in a matrix
manner by regarding one axis as a time axis and the other axis
as a broadcast station axis, and a server to perform a data
communication with said plurality of user terminals via a
network, wherein
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed December 10, 2008; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed July 16, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
January 11, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 12, 2016;
and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed September 12, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
each of said user terminals configured to:
accept a selecting operation to select desired program
information out of said plurality of program information;
receive selecting operations by a plurality of users;
transmit a result of the accepted selecting operation to
said server, said result indicating a total of the selecting
operations when the same program information is selected by
two or more users;
receive the result of the selecting operations of each of
said program information from said server; and
change a display manner of each program information
displayed in a matrix on the basis of the result of the selecting
operations from each of the user terminals,
said server configured to:
receive a result of said selecting operation from each of
said user terminals;
calculate the result of the selecting operations of each of
said plurality of program information, the result is calculated
based on the total of selecting operations when the total of
selecting operations is transmitted; and
transmit said calculated result to each of said user
terminals.
App. Br. 25—26 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Berezowski et al. US 2002/0056087 Al May 9, 2002
(“Berezowski”)
Sie et al. US 2003/0233656 Al Dec. 18, 2003
(“Sie”)
Yasukawa et al. US 7,047,550 B1 May 16, 2006
(“Yasukawa”)
3
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
Conkwright et al.
(“Conkwright”)
Ruiz-Velasco et al.
(“Ruiz-Velasco”)
Mikami et al.
(“Mikami”)
Claims 1^1, 9-12
US 7,146,329 B2
US 2009/0019488 Al
US 2009/0144777 Al
Dec. 5, 2006
Jan. 15,2009
(filed July 10, 2007)
June 4, 2009
(filed Nov. 29, 2007)
The Rejections on Appeal
15—22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berezowski and Mikami. Final Act. 4—8;
Ans. 2—7.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berezowski, Mikami, and Ruiz-Velasco. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 7—8.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berezowski, Mikami, and Yasukawa. Final Act. 10—11;
Ans. 8—10.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berezowski, Mikami, and Conkwright. Final Act. 12—14;
Ans. 10-12.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Berezowski, Mikami, and Sie. Final Act. 14—15; Ans. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—24 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding error by the
Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action
4
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
(Final Act. 2—15) and the Answer (Ans. 2—17). We add the following to
address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The Rejection of Claims 1—4, 9—12,
15—22, and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent Claims 1 and 15-22
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent
claims because Mikami does not disclose or suggest “change a display
manner of each program information displayed in a matrix on the basis of
the result of the selecting operations from each of the user terminals,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 15—22. App. Br. 18—20;
Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant concedes that Mikami discloses a program guide
“where the different programs are ordered (or ranked) based on their degree
of popularity,” i.e., “displayed in order of real-time popularity.” App.
Br. 18—19 (citing Mikami || 41—43, 46, Fig. 4); see Reply Br. 2. Appellant
contends, however, that “simply reordering different programs based on
their popularity does not at all correspond to changing the display form,”
i.e., to “changing the display form of each program (i.e., each program in an
individual cell of the display).” App. Br. 19; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant
additionally contends that “simply changing the location of an item does not
effectively change how it is displayed.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error.
“[Djuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner determines that under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, “changing a display manner includes
changing the order of the programs in the electronic program guide matrix
5
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
so that users can visually grasp the degree of popularity of a program by
looking at the electronic program guide matrix.” Ans. 15; see Final
Act. 2—3, 5. The Examiner finds that Mikami teaches a method of
(1) “compiling in real-time the most watched television program guide
wherein a program guide generator obtains viewership information in real­
time from users by monitoring the number of user requests for a particular
program” and (2) “displaying the most popular or most watched programs
first in the program guide matrix based on the monitoring of user selections
of a particular program.” Ans. 14—15 (citing Mikami || 43 46); see Final
Act. 2—3 (citing Mikami || 43, 45 46). Changing the location of a more-
popular program item from a lower position to an upper position in a display
and concurrently changing the location of a less-popular program item from
an upper position to a lower position in a display corresponds to changing
the “display manner of each program information” according to the
independent claims. See Ans. 14—15; Final Act. 2—3.
Appellant asserts that “Mikami is not actually altering the appearance
(or display manner) of each individual element (e.g., by displaying in
different colors and/or different shades of various colors).” Reply Br. 3.
The independent claims, however, do not require altering the appearance of
program items but more broadly encompass changing their “display
manner.” App. Br. 25—26, 30—36 (Claims App.). The term “manner” means
“mode of presentation.”3
Appellant argues that Mikami reorders “channels based on the
popularity of certain programs shown on the channel” and does not reorder
3 Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
manner.
6
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
program items based on program popularity. Reply Br. 3; see App. Br. 20.
But Mikami discloses that “the program guide is ordered based on real-time
determined popularity of programs” using “viewership information in real­
time from users.” Mikami || 35, 44; see Ans. 14—15 (citing Mikami H 35,
38, 43 46). Mikami also discloses that “the most popular real-time content
is shown and displayed] first.” Mikami 143; see Final Act. 2; Ans. 14.
Thus, Mikami arranges program items based on program popularity.
Mikami explains that “the program guide can be continuously updated and
reordered” using real-time viewership information. Mikami 145; see Final
Act. 2; Ans. 14—15. Because Mikami reorders program items using real­
time viewership information, program item reordering corresponds to
channel reordering.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent claims for
obviousness based on Berezowski and Mikami. Hence, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 15—22.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 9-12
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 2-4 and 9—12. App. Br. 18—23; Reply Br. 2—7. Because
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejection of
claims 2-A and 9—12 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and specifies that “the display manner
of each program information displayed in each cell of the matrix is changed
on the basis of the result of the selecting operations from each of the user
7
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
terminals.” App. Br. 37 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 24 for essentially the same reasons as claim 1.
Compare App. Br. 21, Reply Br. 4—5, with App. Br. 18—20, Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellant’s assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Changing the location of a more-popular program item (or first cell) from a
lower position to an upper position in a display and concurrently changing
the location of a less-popular program item (or second cell) from an upper
position to a lower position in a display corresponds to changing “the
display manner of each program information displayed in each cell”
according to claim 24. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 24.
The Rejection of Claims 5 and 6 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and specifies that “a density of a
display color of each of said program information is changed on the basis of
said result.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 6 includes a
similar limitation. Id. When arguing the patentability of these claims,
Appellant admits that Ruiz-Velasco discloses color-coding a program guide
with multiple colors to “show varying degrees of recommendation (e.g., red
for highly recommended, orange/yellow for lesser recommended).” App.
Br. 22 ; see Reply Br. 5—6. Appellant asserts, however, that Ruiz-Velasco
“does not change the color density of different elements in the program
guide, let alone change the color density based on the result of selecting
operations from multiple user terminals.” App. Br. 22; see Reply Br. 6—7.
According to Appellant, “changing the color of an item does not reasonably
correspond to changing the color density of the item.” App. Br. 22.
Appellant also asserts that Ruiz-Velasco “fails to disclose or suggest that ‘a
density of a display color of each of said program information is changed on
8
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
the basis of said result,’ as required by dependent claim 5 (and similarly
required by dependent claim 6).” App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 6—7.
Appellant’s assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that “Berezowski in view of Mikami teaches changing a
display manner based on calculated results.” Final Act. 9; Ans. 7; see also
Final Act. 5; Ans. 3—4, 14—15. Appellant does not address that finding.
App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 5—7. Also, Appellant does not articulate or
identify a definition for the term “color density.” App. Br. 22—23; Reply
Br. 5—7. Further, the Examiner finds that Ruiz-Velasco teaches a program
guide with personalized program recommendations for users and color codes
denoting the degree of program relevance. Ans. 16 (citing Ruiz-Velasco
33—34, 42, Figs. 4—5); see Final Act. 9 (citing Ruiz-Velasco H 27, 33).
In particular, Ruiz-Velasco discloses color-coding a program guide to
“distinguish shows/programs that are recommended” and showing “varying
degrees of recommendation” using “varying . . . colors.” Ruiz-Velasco
1133—34. For instance, pink and red constitute different colors, with pink a
lighter variation of red. Consequently, Ruiz-Velasco teaches or suggests
using different color densities. Similar to Ruiz-Velasco, the Specification
discusses color-coding using different colors (white and red, for example)
and lightening or darkening a color “depending on the level of the degree of
popularity.” Spec. 46:13—21. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 5
and 6.
The Rejections of Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, and 23 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 7, 8, 13, 14, and 23. App. Br. 18—23; Reply Br. 2—7.
Because Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
9
Appeal 2016-008596
Application 12/331,944
rejections of claims 7, 8, 13, 14, and 23 for the same reasons as claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24.
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
10