Ex Parte Maze et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11156897 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH WAYNE MAZE, JEFFREY PHILIP REAVIS,
ROBERT HOWARD MILLER, SHEILA RENEE CROSBY, KEITH
REYNOLDS WEHMEYER, HUGH BOYD MORRISON, and
MEGAN LOUISE BROWN

Appeal 2010-001329
Application 11/156,897
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 13-15. Claims 1-12 and 16-17 were cancelled during
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-001329
Application 11/156,897

2

Rejection
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Farwell (US Pat. 5,650,831), Yanagihara (US
Pat. 5,715,443), and Torres (US Pat. 5,410,692).

Illustrative Claim 13

A method for processing channel guide information,
comprising the steps of:

receiving channel guide information;

receiving a user typed text string search request;

performing until said search request is turned off, a search of
said channel guide information for a program in said channel guide
information having program description that satisfies said user-
entered request wherein said channel guide information is updated at
least once during said search so that said search is performed on said
updated channel guide information; and

recording automatically without user intervention, a program
which is found in said performing step having program description
that satisfies said user-entered request;

wherein at least two different video programs with different
program titles are recorded in view of said same search request; and

one of the at least two different programs has the search request
matching part of title information of a first program and a second
program from said at least two different programs has the search
request matching part of at least one of: star information, director
information, rating information, and plot information, where the
matching of said second program search request is not found in said
title of said second program.
Appeal 2010-001329
Application 11/156,897

3
Analysis
Based upon our review of the record, we find the preponderance of
the evidence supports the Appellants’ arguments with respect to at least the
limitation: “wherein at least two different video programs with different
program titles are recorded in view of said same search request”, as recited
in independent claim 13. (See App. Br. 6-8).
It is our view that the Examiner’s arguments, in particular regarding
Torres (Ans. 13), amount to a mere theory of possible use and do not
establish that the cited combination of references would have taught or fairly
suggested the aforementioned disputed limitation, within the meaning of
independent claim 13. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 13-15 for the reasons set forth in the Appellants’ Brief. (See App. Br.
6-8).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a).

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-001329
Application 11/156,897

4

tkl