Ex Parte Longet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13333185 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/333, 185 12/21/2011
15630 7590
Thomson Licensing, LLC
P.O. Box 691927
Houston, TX 77269-1927
11/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aurelien Longet
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.
PF100123 5552
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
barry.blount@iiplg.com
barry.blount@att.net
docketing@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AURELIEN LONGET, FREDERIC BABON,
TRISTAN LANGLOIS, and PATRICK GALLARDO
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4 and 7-10. Claims 5 and 6 have been canceled (Br. 2). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention is a method and receiver for receiving
audio/video data and displaying an electronic program guide (EPG) by
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
resizing the time slots allotted in the displayed EPG (Title; Spec. 1 :5-3;
claims 1 and 7; Abs.; Figs. 3 and 4).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 7 under appeal, with emphases and lettered
bracketing added to disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
7. A receiver for receiving audio/video data, the
receiver compnsmg:
a processor executing an audio/video decoding logic that
creates audio-visual signals to be sent to a display device;
a circuit configured to generate a program guide to be
displayed on the display device, the program guide comprising
a list of programs and channels and a time scale showing a first
time period, wherein the programs are displayed corresponding
to the time scale and to the channels on which the programs are
received; and
input;
an interface configured to receive a user input;
wherein the circuit configured to:
check if a program is selected in response to a user
[A] check if the selected program has some
portion occurring at a time outside of the displayed first time
period shown by the time scale, by checking if the start time and
the end time of the selected program are within the first time
period;
if at least one of the start time and the end time of
the selected program is not within the first time period shown
by the time scale, [BJ adapting the time scale to show a second
time period such that the start time and the end time of the
selected program are both within the second time period shown
by the time scale; and
display the program guide using the adapted time
scale.
2
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 7-10 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choi (US 2009/0133066 Al; published May
21, 2009) and Allport (US 2004/0055007 Al; issued Mar. 18, 2004). Final
Act. 5-8. 1
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
3-9 of the Answer, including the Examiner's cogent and reasonable
explanation of the motivation for combining the applied references (see Ans.
4--5 citing Allport, Abs.).
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5-10), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-10 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Choi and Allport because the
combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations [A] and/or [BJ
of representative independent claim 7?
1 Appellants present arguments generally as to independent claims 1 and 7,
alleging that Choi and Allport, taken individually or in combination, fail to
disclose the checking and adapting limitations recited in claims 1 and 7 (Br.
7-9). Because both claims 1 and 7 contain similar features (namely the
disputed features of checking and adapting), and Appellants' arguments
presented from pages 7-9 of the Brief are not directed to a specific
independent claim, but to claims 1 and 7 in general, we select claim 7 as
representative of the group of claims rejected as being obvious over the
combination of Choi and Allport. Claims 1--4 and 8-10 will stand/fall with
the outcome of representative claim 7.
3
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 5-8) in light
of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5-10) that the Examiner
has erred, as well as the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments
(Ans. 3-9). We disagree with Appellants' conclusion that claims 1--4 and 7-
10 are nonobvious. With regard to representative independent claim 7, we
adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7-8), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 4--8) in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis.
Choi describes checking times of a selected program for inclusion in a
certain time period (Final Act. 5 citing Choi Fig. 2; i-fi-137, 42, 45, and 48;
see also Ans. 5 citing Choi Figs. 2--4; i-fi-137, 52, 45, 47, and 48), which is
equivalent to limitation [A] recited in claim 7. We agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 5---6 citing Choi Figs. 3-8 and 11; i-fi-145, 47, 48, 50, and 72-74)
that Choi teaches or suggests adapting a time scale and the combination of
Choi and Allport teaches or suggests informing program durations to users
by "adapting the time scale to show a second time period such that the start
time and the end time of the selected program are both within the second
time period shown by the time scale," as recited in limitation [BJ of claim 7. 2
2 Notably, independent claim 7 is an apparatus claim that simply recites "[a]
receiver" including "a processor," "a circuit configured to generate a
program guide to be displayed," and "an interface configured to receive a
user input" (claim 7). And, Choi discloses (Fig. 2) a receiving device 200,
an image processor 208, a display unit 210, a control unit 216 that generates
a program guide (see Figs. 1 and 3-9 showing program guides), and an
4
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
Appellants' arguments directed to each individual reference (see Br.
5-10), or the combination of references (see Br. 7-9 discussing Choi and
Allport), are not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner relies on a well
reasoned combination of Choi and Allport to support the conclusion of
obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 7. Appellants
have not rebutted or otherwise shown the Examiner's explanation of the
combination of the collective teachings and suggestions of the applied
references (see Ans. 3-9) in response to Appellants' arguments in the Brief
(regarding the references individually or combined) to be in error.
In addition, we note Appellants' arguments are all premised on the
assertion that the references, whether taken individually or in combination,
fail to disclose the recited invention, and not that the references taken with
the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
taught or suggested the recited invention. As a result, Appellants have not
shown that the combination of Choi and Allport would not have taught or
suggested the recited invention.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 7, as well as claims 2--4 and 8-10 depending
respectively therefrom.
interface for receiving user input (e.g., user control information input unit
202, remote control receiving unit 218; see also
i-fi-137--46). Appellants have not effectively shown that the combination of
Choi and Allport fails to meet the basic structural limitations recited in claim
7.
5
Appeal2015-007867
Application 13/333, 185
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Choi and
Allport.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 7-10 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6