10925737 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2010)

Ex Parte Moreau et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 12, 2010

10925737 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2010)

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. 10/925,737 08/24/2004 Samuel Moreau 007412.01081 8078 71867 7590 11/12/2010 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/12/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SAMUEL MOREAU and JOHN CARNEY ____________________ Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,7371 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAY P. LUCAS, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 Application 10/925,737, filed on August 24, 2004, is a continuation in part of 10/664.275 filed on September 16, 2003. The real party in interest is TV Works, LLC. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 28 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral hearing was scheduled for August 3, 2010, but waived. We affirm the rejection. Appellants’ invention relates to a navigation control interface displaying a selection of programs on a display such as a television. In the words of Appellants: Described herein are systems and methods by which subscribers are presented with dynamic iTV navigational hierarchies that first present navigational options based on relevance to the available content on television, and to the currently viewed program, channel, provider or genre of program, channel or provider. In current navigational systems users are provided menus from which they can select a target content search point. These menus are either presented as long lists of options or as very short lists. The long lists provide greater subdivision of content but create a navigational obstacle in that the lists must be scanned to find a link to a specific content of interest. The short lists provide content search points that are much too general such that if the link is selected, the viewer is taken to yet another page for further categorization or the viewer is presented with a large set of content that must be browsed. The present invention enables the quick access to multiple levels of granularity of content categorization on a single menu, by using the context of the currently viewed program to set the state of the navigational control when displayed. 2 Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 (Spec. 7, ¶ [0011]; Fig. 5). Figure 5 is reproduced below: Figure 5 depicts exemplary user interface for selecting channel/provider related links. The following claim is illustrative of the claims on appeal: Claim 1: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a contextual navigation control interface (CNCI), wherein the CNCI is dynamically generated based on a currently viewed television program, channel or provider, or a genre of the program, channel or provider, and the CNCI includes a first area that represents a plurality of cable television programs having a first level of relevance; a second area that represents a first group of the plurality of programs having a second level of relevance; and a third area that represents a first subgroup of the first group having a third level of relevance. 3 Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Segerberg US 6,910,191 B2 Jun. 21, 2005 (filed on Nov. 02, 2001) REJECTION The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for being anticipated by Segerberg. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue specifically turns on whether the Segerberg reference teaches that the contextual navigation control interface (CNCI) is dynamically generated based on a currently viewed television program, channel, provider or genre of the program, as claimed. 4 Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Appellants have invented a system and method for displaying programming choices available from a program provider, such as cable TV, filtered in progressively higher contextual levels (¶¶ [0044], [0045]). A program guide is divided into successively more focused choices including program times, types and channels (pp. 14, 15). 2. The Segerberg reference teaches a program guide with successively more detailed displays of programming available to the user relevant to the programming. (Col. 5, ll. 1 to 12). 3. Figure 8 of Segerberg: Figure 8 of Segerberg indicates the user interface of Segerberg relevant to the content programming. 5 Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 PRINCIPLES OF LAW BURDEN AND REVIEW STANDARDS Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). ANALYSIS The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being anticipated by Segerberg. Appellants argue that Segerberg’s user interface is not dynamically generated, as required by the claim, but rather displays “all times” as the view presented whenever the user activates the on-screen guide (App. Br. 5, bottom). We do not find that argument tenable, in view of Segerberg’s teaching of a “showing now” option (col. 7, l. 45). Thus, we endorse and adopt the response of the Examiner (Ans. 4, 5), so we do not find error in the rejection. Appellants next argue that “Segerberg neither teaches nor suggests a user interface in which the areas of interface representing programs having varying levels of relevance to the presently viewed program, etc.” (App. Br. 6, middle). Again, we endorse and adopt the Examiner’s response in view of the clear teaching in Segerberg (FF #2; Ans. 5, bottom). 6 Appeal 2009-011074 Application 10/925,737 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 to 28. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 28. 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 peb BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 7