15533059 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2020)

INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT HOLDING

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 17, 2020

15533059 - (D) (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