Ex Parte Adimatyam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

12420522 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/420,522 04/08/2009 25537 7590 03/22/2016 VERIZON PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Venkata S. Adimatyam 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 20080516 2621 EXAMINER DUFFIELD, JEREMY S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2016 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): patents@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte VENKATA S. ADIMATYAM and DAKSH JASRA Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-19, and 21-25. 1 Claims 9, 15, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Verizon Communications Inc. as the real party in interest. (Br. 3.) Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to capturing descriptive information associated with viewed television content, and displaying viewing history based on the captured information. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: capturing descriptive information associated with viewed television content; storing the captured information; receiving a request to display viewing history information; retrieving at least some of the captured information; and displaying, to a user associated with the captured information, overview history information based on at least some of the retrieved information, wherein the overview viewing history information comprises one or more non-textual, graphical elements corresponding to types of viewed television content, and wherein the types of viewed television content comprise video on demand content, live television content, and digital video recorder content. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai (US 2007/0245368 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2007), Asmussen et al. (US 2002/0042923 Al, pub. Apr. 11, 2002), Cordray et al. (US 2007 /0157220 Al, pub. Jul. 5, 2007), Shivaji-Rao et al. (US 2007/0245373 Al, Oct. 18, 2007), and Beatty (US 2002/0054101 Al, pub. May 9, 2002). (Final Act. 5-13.) 2 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Finseth et al. (US 2005/0028207 Al, pub. Feb. 3, 2005). (Final Act. 13-14.) The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Hwang (US 2004/0205815 Al, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). (Final Act. 14--16.) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Zaner (US 2004/0221309 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2004). (Final Act. 16-17.) The Examiner rejected claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2007/0061832 Al, pub. Mar. 15, 2007), Zigmond et al. (US 2006/0026279 Al, pub. Feb. 2, 2006), Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty. (Final Act. 17-22.) The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Zaner. (Final Act. 23-24.) The Examiner rejected claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty. (Final Act. 24--28.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues: 2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sep. 23, 2013), Final Office Action (mailed May 23, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 27, 2013) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 Issue One: Whether the combination of Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations: wherein the overview viewing history information comprises one or more non-textual, graphical elements corresponding to types of viewed television content [hereinafter, the "graphical limitation"], and wherein the types of viewed television content comprise video on demand content, live television content, and digital video recorder content [hereinafter, the "content types limitation"], and, in addition, whether the combination of Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty teaches or suggests the similar graphical limitation recited in independent claim 16, and also whether the combination of Kawai, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty teaches or suggests the similar graphical limitation recited in independent claim 23. (Br. 9-16, 20-24.) Issue Two: Whether the combination of Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Hwang teaches or suggests the dependent claim 8 limitation, "wherein the authorized user is an account holder of an account that corresponds to the more than one STB [set top box]." (Br. 17-19.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments: we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-28) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-12), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following. 4 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 Issue One For the graphical limitation ("the overview viewing history information comprises one or more non-textual, graphical elements corresponding to types of viewed television content"), the Examiner primarily relies on the disclosure in Beatty of displaying information in the form of a pie chart to the user, together with the disclosure in Shivaji-Rao of pie charts that depict viewing history of various types of video content. (Final Act. 8-9, 20-21, 26-27; Ans. 3--4, 9-10, 12; Beatty Fig. 22. i-f 202; Shivaji-Rao Figs. 9-11, i-fi-147, 49, 54.) The Examiner further relies on Kawai and Kim as teaching or suggesting, inter alia, displaying overview history information generally. (E.g., Final Act. 6, 18; Ans. 2-3, 9;Kawai Fig. 4, i-f 106, 107, 121; Kim i-fi-f 33, 39 .) For the content types limitation ("wherein the types of viewed television content comprise video on demand content, live television content, and digital video recorder content"), the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Asmussen of a user history analysis report that contains a percentage breakdown of content types and genres for which a user has requested searches or downloaded, and the disclosure in Cordray of viewing history including "broadcast programming, recorded programming, pay-per- view programming, video-on-demand programming, near video-on-demand programming, streaming media programming, Internet accessible programming, [etc.]" (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 3; Asmussen i-f 78; Cordray Fig. 12, ,-r 135.) For the graphical limitation, Appellants argue "Kawai merely discloses displaying a textual viewing history," correctly point out that the pie charts of Shivaji-Rao graphically depict viewer history for purposes of 5 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 patent description, but not for display to viewers, and further argue that Beatty is non-analogous art and graphically displays machine status information rather than viewer history. (Br. 10, 12-15.) Appellants similarly argue against the combination of Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty with respect to claim 16. (Br. 20-22.) For the content type limitation, Appellants argue Asmussen uses the content type information to suggest programs to the viewer, rather than displaying viewing history, and Cordray groups together the different types of television programming. (Br. 11-12, 15-16.) These arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the references individually, whereas the ground ofunpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, we find no error in the Examiner's finding that Beatty is analogous art. "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ). As the Examiner finds: In this case, the problem with which the applicant is concerned is the "displaying of overview viewing history ... wherein the overview viewing history information comprises one or more non-textual, graphical elements corresponding to types of viewed television content." Kawai in view of Asmussen in view of Cordray in view of Shivaji-Rao teaches 6 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 displaying overview viewing history wherein the overview viewing history comprises types of viewed television content as noted above. Beatty teaches displaying a summary of data using non-textual graphical elements in a pie chart (Fig. 22). Combining the references brings about a system wherein the overview viewing history is displayed in a pie chart so that each type of viewed television content is displayed as a percentage of the overall viewed television content. Furthermore, "known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces/market place incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art" is a valid KSR rationale and may be applied here as well. Therefore, Beatty is not considered non-analogous art and the combination is valid. (Ans. 5---6.) We agree with the Examiner's findings. In KSR, the Court stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Telej1ex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Issue Two For the limitation at issue in dependent claim 8 "wherein the authorized user is an account holder of an account that corresponds to the more than one STB [set top box]," the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Hwang and Asmussen of authorization of users- e.g. via passwords- and on the disclosure in Cordray of multiple user devices, including set top boxes. (Final Act. 14; Ans. 7-8; Hwang i-fi-143, 65, 65; Asmussen i-fi-158, 72; 7 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 Cordray iii! 123-124, 132-134.) Appellants' arguments again address the references individually, and do not persuade that the Examiner errs in finding, "[ c ]ombining the references brings about a system wherein an authorized user may utilize any of a plurality of set-top boxes to request and view viewing history." (Br. 17-19; Ans. 8.) CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claim 1 over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty, of claim 16 over Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty, of claim 8 over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Hwang, and of claim 23 over Kawai, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2---6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty, of claim 7 over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Finseth, of claim 12 over Kawai, Asmussen, Cordray, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Zaner, of claims 17-19 over Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty, of claims 21 and 22 over Kim, Zigmond, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, Beatty, and Zaner, and of claims 24 and 25 over Kawai, Asmussen, Shivaji-Rao, and Beatty, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 16-17, 20, 22-24.) DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-19, and 21-25 are affirmed. 8 Appeal2014-004937 Application 12/420,522 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9