11390657 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

Ex Parte Purpura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 2015

11390657 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

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. 11/390,657 03/28/2006 Richard F. Purpura PD-205009 1728 20991 7590 12/23/2015 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2015 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 RICHARD F. PURPURA, DAVID E. SHANKS, LEON J. STANGER, MICHAEL R. MUNSELL, FERGUS DOYLE, DAVID E. FELDSTEIN, CAROL A. PATRICK, MITCH C. JACOBS, WILLIAM C. HOLTON, BLAIR PETTYJOHN, and CARL OSTROM ____________ Appeal 2014-000827 Application 11/390,657 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and KAMRAN JIVANI Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 14–18, 21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify The DIRECTV Group, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are canceled. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2014-000827 Application 11/390,657 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application relates to interactive mosaic channel video streams with barker channels and guides. Spec. 1:11–12. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A system for transmitting information on a plurality of viewer channels including interactive matrixed video information on an interactive viewer channel for presentation on a monitor comprising: a transmitter for transmitting the interactive matrixed video information on the interactive viewer channel, the interactive matrixed video information comprising: a plurality of video cells, each concurrently presenting at least video information of an associated one of a plurality of individual video feeds, each one of the plurality of individual video feeds being simultaneously broadcast on an associated one of the plurality of viewer channels other than the interactive viewer channel a barker cell, comprising barker cell video and audio information describing the video information being presented in the plurality of video cells, wherein the barker cell information is transmitted only on the interactive viewer channel; and wherein the plurality of video cells and the barker cell are user-selectable by a cursor, movable among the plurality of video cells and the barker cell, for selecting a cell of the plurality of video cells and the barker cell to present audio information of the selected cell, wherein further selection of a selected video cell directly selects the video feed associated with the further selected video cell, and wherein selecting the barker cell displays the video and audio information of the barker cell. Appeal 2014-000827 Application 11/390,657 3 The Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 14–18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin (US 2002/0067376 A1,published June 6, 2002) and Ellis (US 6,604,240 B2, issued Aug. 5, 2003). Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Ellis, and Hervet et al. (US 7,146,615 B1, issued Dec. 5, 2006). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because: (i) Martin does not teach or suggest “the barker cell is transmitted on the interactive video channel and not on any of the other viewer channels (App. Br. 12–14); and (ii) “Martin and Ellis teach away from the notion of having a barker cell describing the video information being concurrently presented to the viewer on the same display.” App. Br. 17. We have considered the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s Answer thereto. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Rather, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings and reasons. We further emphasize the following. Appellants’ argument (i) fails to persuade of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “Martin discloses a barker cell (Fig. 5D: cell 502-10) in a matrix of video cells, wherein the video cells display video for currently available television programs ([0099]-[0103]). The barker cell displays promotional video content ([0103]).” Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds, “Nowhere in the disclosure of Martin is the Appeal 2014-000827 Application 11/390,657 4 barker cell available from any other source than the portal 500 (Fig. 5D).” Ans. 3. Appellants do not argue persuasively why Martin’s barker cell within a matrix of video cells, and depicted only in that context, would not teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed negative limitation. Similarly, Appellant’s argument (ii) is not persuasive. A reference may be said to teach away from the invention if it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying a reference to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner correctly finds, “Martin teaches a barker cell displaying advertisements for available video content ([0103]). Ellis teaches a barker cell displaying advertisements from available video content (col. 7 lines 28- 59).” Ans. 4. Appellants contend, “Ellis discloses a barker cell describing television listings, not video cells (App. Br. 16)” and “what one of ordinary skill in the art would do with program listings and video cells are not analogous.” Id. at 17; see also Reply Br. 8–9. However, Appellants fail to direct us to any statement in Martin or Ellis criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the claimed barker cell. We further note Appellants do not proffer evidence of “what one of ordinary skill in the art would do with program listings and video cells.” App. Br. 17. Therefore, Appellant has not persuasively established that Martin and Ellis teach away from the claimed invention. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1, 6, and 18 as well as their dependent claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 14–18, 21, and 22, not separately argued. Appeal 2014-000827 Application 11/390,657 5 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 14–18, 21, and 22. 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 mp