INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT HOLDING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2019004117 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2020)

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.
15/533,059 06/05/2017 Matthew Joseph COBURN 2014P00024WOUS 3439
119110 7590 11/17/2020
Invention Mine IDC
216 S. Jefferson
Suite 102
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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):
bob@inventionmine.com
docket@inventionmine.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW JOSEPH COBURN
____________________

Appeal 2019-004117
Application 15/533,059
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 8 through 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT
HOLDINGS is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004117
Application 15/533,059

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of programming an electronic
program guide. Abstract. Claim 8 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below.
8. A method for programming a set top box (STB), the method
comprising:
providing a time of day;
receiving a user’s viewing preferences;
receiving a user’s specified conditions for showing fields in an
electronic program guide (EPG);
adjusting information based on the user’s viewing preferences
in at least one application, wherein the user’s viewing
preferences are a function of the time of day and
determining which of the fields should be shown in the
EPG based on the user’s specified conditions; and
transmitting the adjusted information and the EPG with the
specified fields shown based on the user’s specified
conditions to a display device.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 2003/0110500 A1, published June 12,
2003), and Ma (US 2006/0123448 A1, published June 8, 2006). Final
Act. 2–5.
The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rodriguez, Ma and Shoykher (US 2014/0053197 A1,
published February 20, 2014). Final Act. 5.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 13,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 30, 2019 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed July 25, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 5, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004117
Application 15/533,059

3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 13. Appellant argues that
the combination of Rodriguez and Ma does not teach the claimed feature of
receiving user conditions for showing fields in the EPG and transmitting an
adjusted EPG, with the specified fields shown, to a display device, as recited
in each of independent claims 8 and 13. Appeal Br. 10–13, Reply Br. 5–11.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Ma, which the Examiner relies upon to
teach this limitation, teaches that the user can set filtering conditions to
recommend a program to the user, but Ma does not “teach or otherwise
suggest receiving its time period for showing fields in an electronic program
guide (EPG), much less adjusting information based on the time period by
determining which of the fields should be shown in the EPG based on the
time period.” Reply Br. 6–7, Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner in response states:
Ma’s reference teaches the user can set one or more of the
filtering conditions by specifying a user setting Fig. 8/ item
360. Then the system will recommend the programs according
to these conditions wherein in time setting, the user can define a
period of time. For example, the user can set a time period from
2004-10-6::0:00 to 2004-10-8::24:00 conditions. The user can
modify the setting by changing the filtering conditions by
changing the time period when recommended programs can be
received. Ma teaches that if the user is able to select the
filtering conditions/ specific time, this is adjusting the
Appeal 2019-004117
Application 15/533,059

4
information.
Ans. 9–10.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. There does not appear to be a dispute that Ma teaches filtering the
programs in the EPG to only show those that meet the user’s preferences.
See e.g., Ma ¶ 65. But we do not find that this teaches the disputed
limitation of the claims, that the user specify conditions for showing fields in
the electronic program guide and transmitting to the display device the EPG
with the specified fields shown. Appellant’s Specification discusses the
EPG as displaying metadata about a show and that the metadata has fields
for different types of data.3 Thus, when interpreted in light of the
Specification, the fields specified are fields of data about the program, not
whether or not a program is to be displayed in the EPG (e.g., filtering out
programs of the genre of comedy, is different from determining a field of
genre is not to be shown). Thus, we do not consider the Examiner to have
shown that the combination of Rodriguez and Ma teaches or suggests all of
the limitations of independent claims 8 and 13.
Accordingly, constrained by the present record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 through 15.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of

3 Specification, paragraph 26, states “Program titles and information about
such programs are shown within the cells of the program guide grid. The
EPG being displayed is the main screen EPG grid guide, which is typically
shown in the grid guide. A user can get more information about a particular
show by pressing an info button, which would show information as shown in
the fields displayed. For a given broadcast 10 program, the following fields
for metadata may be used: title, actor, genre, guests, episode number, and
first run/rerun.”
Appeal 2019-004117
Application 15/533,059

5
Shoykher, relied upon to reject dependent claim 12, make up for the
deficiency noted in the rejection of independent claim 8. Accordingly, we
similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 through 15.

Claims
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–15 103 Rodriguez, Ma 8–15
12 103 Rodriguez, Ma,
Shoykher
12
Overall
Outcome
8–15

REVERSED