Ex Parte Maddison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14455776 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/455,776 08/08/2014
82750 7590 03/28/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP I Google
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyle Maddison
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.
060963-7180-US 4789
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYLE MADDISON and ROMAN KIRILLOV 1
Appeal2017-010438
Application 14/455,776
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-22, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 7 and 14 are canceled (see Claims
Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name Google Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2017-010438
Application 14/455,776
The present invention relates generally "to determining a television
program being displayed in proximity to an electronic device and using the
determination to return improved search results" (Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for enhancing search queries related to
streaming multimedia, the method comprising:
at a server with one or more processors and
memory storing programs configured for execution by the one
or more processors:
receiving a search query from a first user device
entered by a user during a time window;
accessing a repository of streaming multimedia
related information to determine one or more streaming
multimedia programs available to the first user device for
watching during the time window;
identifying a first set of categories associated with
the received search query;
for each streaming multimedia program of the one
or more streaming multimedia programs, identifying a
respective second set of categories associated with the
respective streaming multimedia program;
determining that a first streaming multimedia
program of the one or more streaming multimedia programs is
being displayed on a second user device in proximity to the first
user device by comparing the first set of categories to each
second set of categories;
determining one or more additional search terms
that are relevant to the determined first streaming multimedia
program and the received search query;
modifying the received search query by adding the
one or more additional search terms to the received search
query;
identifying search results corresponding to the
modified search query; and
2
Appeal2017-010438
Application 14/455,776
causing the first user device to display the search
results.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu (US 2008/0195582 Al, Aug. 14, 2008) and
Wong (US 2011/0282906 Al, Nov. 17, 2011).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Wong teaches or suggest
"determining that a first streaming multimedia program ... is being
displayed on a second user device," as set forth in each of the independent
claims?
Here, the Examiner admits that Yu does not explicitly disclose
"determine that a first streaming multimedia program ... is being displayed
on a second user device" (see Final Act. 4--5), but instead relies upon Wong
to disclose this feature (id. at 5). As such, we shall look for error in the
Examiner's interpretation of Wong.
Appellants contend Wong "does not teach or suggest 'determining
that a first streaming multimedia program ... is being displayed on a second
user device" (App. Br. 14) (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend
that "presenting the results of a user-requested search at a particular
3
Appeal2017-010438
Application 14/455,776
electronic device does not teach or suggest 'determining that a first
streaming multimedia program of the one or more streaming multimedia
programs is being displayed' as claimed" (Reply Br. 7) (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants.
Although the Examiner finds that Wong "uses user's query to search
in the database in the server .... then the search result is sent to the second
user's device" (Ans. 10, citing Wong i-fi-160, 63, 65-74, 95, 99, 132, 145), the
Examiner fails to adequately explain how Wong's sending of the search
results to the second user device is the same as "determining that a first
streaming multimedia program ... is being displayed on a second user
device." At best, we find that Wong teaches creating "a display of [the]
search results that is presented to the user" (Wong i1 65), not determining
what program is currently being displayed, i.e., already present and
displaying on the second device.
For example, Appellants' Specification describes that the query server
system determines, based on the search query, "the television program the
user is currently watching ... by accessing a device (e.g., a set top box, an
Internet-enabled television system, or a home media computing device) that
stores information concerning the television channel or television program
currently being displayed to a user" (Spec. i153). We find that the claimed
"is being displayed on a second user device" relates to a program currently
being displayed on the second device, not the presentation of search results
for a query being sent to the second user device, i.e., the mere display of
search results. Furthermore, Wong's search results, e.g., identity of the actor
and movies and shows starring the actor, are related to live television
programming currently displaying on the first device that provided the
4
Appeal2017-010438
Application 14/455,776
search query (see Wong i-fi-188-91), instead of programming being displayed
on a second device in proximity to the first user device.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Wong teaches
determining a program being displayed on a second user device, as recited in
each of the independent claims. The Examiner also has not found any of the
other references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least
one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits
of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-22.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5