Ex Parte Kikinis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

09854339 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

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.
09/854,339 05/11/2001 Dan Kikinis 007287.00040 8678
22907 7590 09/26/2013
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
LEWIS, JONATHAN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2013 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)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAN KIKINIS and YAKOV KAMEN
____________

Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME,
and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 20, 23-25, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 40-48,
50, and 51, which are all the claims pending in this application, as claims 4,
6-7, 10-11, 15, 17-18, 21-22, 26, 28-29, 32-34, 36, 39, 49, and 52 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to an Electronic Programming Guide
(EPG) for displaying programming information in a variety of ways and
allowing the viewers to select between 3-D programming worlds based on
the viewer’s programming preference (see Spec. ¶ [0007]).

Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and
reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor;
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when
executed by the processor, cause the system to:
generate an interactive three-dimensional (3-D) electronic
programming guide (EPG), the 3-D EPG including a presentation of a
virtual world having programming information and a layout;
access a database including a plurality of 3-D EPG worlds, each
3-D EPG world including a virtual world layout that provides the
layout of the presented virtual world;
receive, from a user, at least one user preference assigning a 3-
D EPG world of the plurality of 3-D EPG worlds to one or more
channels of the 3-D EPG;
receive a selection of a channel of the one or more channels of
the 3-D EPG; and
in response to receiving the selection of the channel, modify the
layout of the presented virtual world based on the virtual world layout
of the 3-D EPG world assigned by the at least one user preference.

Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 41-44, 46-
48, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
Finseth (US 6,754,906 B1).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Finseth and Williams (US 5,977,964).
Claims 35, 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Finseth and Knee (US 2002/0095676 A1).
Claims 37, 40, 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Finseth and Martino (US 6,662,177 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend that the teachings of
Finseth do not support the anticipation rejection of the claim because, while
Finseth discussed displaying additional information when a user selects a
user-link, the reference fails to teach the recited feature:
receive, from a user, at least one user preference
assigning a 3-D EPG world of the plurality of 3-D EPG worlds
to one or more channels of the 3-D EPG; [and] in response to
receiving the selection of the channel, modify the layout of the
presented virtual world based on the virtual world layout of the
3-D EPG world assigned by the at least one user preference . . .
(App. Br. 7). Appellants further assert that Finseth does not describe that the
disclosed “category classification of the channel objects” is assigned to a
particular channel or is used to modify a virtual world layout (App. Br. 7-8
(citing Finseth, col. 7, ll. 27-45)). Appellants contend that, instead of
assigning a particular style to one or more channels of EPG, different
selections in sub-menu 132 of Finseth cause displaying the program guide in
a grid format or a categorical EPG (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339

4
2. Appellants further argue the patentability of independent claims
12 and 23 based on the same reasons discussed for claim 1 and the
dependent claims based on their dependency upon their respective base
claims (App. Br. 8).
3. Regarding § 103 rejections of claims 3, 35, 37, 38, 40, and 51,
Appellants contend that the teachings of the additional references do not
cure the deficiencies of Finseth, nor teach or suggest the claimed subject
matter (App. Br. 8-9).1

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 13-19). However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
We agree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 17), that claim 1 merely
requires assigning a 3-D EPG world to one or more channels and modifying
the layout of the virtual world based on a single user preference. As further
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 18), these features are met by the
disclosure of Finseth where the user can choose which links to

1 Based upon Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief allowing all the
claims to stand or fall with representative claim 1, we consider claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter of the appealed claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339

5
include/exclude in the 3-D EPG world which is done by choosing the
organizational structure for displaying the EPG (col. 19, ll. 5-15) and saving
the user-defined organizational categories in a memory to be recalled later
(col. 21, ll. 10-15). We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 18)
that the layout of a 3-D world can be modified based on the command-style
user-links because Finseth allows the user to select how the electronic
program is to be displayed (see col. 20, ll. 12-17). Therefore, contrary to
Appellants’ position (Reply Br. 5-6), Finseth teaches the disputed feature as
selecting the display style based on the user preference, such as the
“CATEGORICAL 3-D” option shown in Figure 10, which is used to display
the channels of a given organizational category (see, e.g., Finseth, Fig. 7 and
col. 16, ll. 3-30). Finseth further discloses displaying the EPG in a desired
style based on the user preference when the user selects one of the guide-
links 134 and 136 (col. 21, ll. 3-11).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 18) that the user
selection of the user-link 122 modifies the layout of the presented 3-D EPG
world as it may cause tuning to the channel associated with the program title
or provide additional information regarding that channel (see Finseth, col.
19, ll. 19-34). That is, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim, without specifying the style or nature of the modification (see Ans.
19), any change to the way the 3-D EPG represents channels or information
related to those channels meets the recited “modify the layout of the
presented virtual world.”
As discussed herein, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred, and we therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e)
Appeal 2013-001721
Application 09/854,339

6
rejection of claim 1 and §§ 102 and 103 rejections of the remaining claims
falling therewith.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 20, 23-
25, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 40-48, 50, and 51 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke