Ex Parte Beadle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11812779 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD R. BEADLE and JOHN L. DELAY
____________

Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2, 3, 10–29, and 31–69. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to creating a preferred
channel list by determining an identity of a user interacting with a content
presentation system, collecting channel use information for each of a
plurality of channels from the user’s interaction with the content
presentation system, storing the channel use information, determining a
value for each of the plural channels as a function of the channel use
information, and creating a preferred channel list for the plural channels as a
function of the determined value. Abstract.
Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
10. A method for creating a preferred channel list,
comprising:
(a) determining in a content provider an identity of a user
interacting with a content presentation system;
(b) collecting channel use information for each of a
plurality of channels from the user’s interaction with the
content presentation system;
(c) storing the channel use information;
(d) determining a value for each of said plural channels
as a function of the channel use information; and
(e) creating a preferred channel list for said plural
channels as a function of the determined value,
Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

3
wherein the value for a first channel of said plurality of
channels is determined as a ratio of a total duration of a
presentation of content associated with said first channel over a
predetermined time period to a total duration of a presentation
of content associated with each of said plural channels over said
predetermined time period
wherein said predetermined time period corresponds to a
first predetermined time slot and a first value for said first
channel is stored for a first occurrence of said first
predetermined time slot.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 10–25, 29, 31, 33–53, and 57 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Florence (US Pub.
2002/0188948 A1, Dec. 12, 2002) in view of Candelore (US Pub.
2002/0104081 A1, Aug. 1, 2002).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Florence, Candelore, and Cordray (US Pub.
2007/0157220 A1, July 5, 2007).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 26–28 and 54–56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Florence, Candelore, and Swix (US
Pub. 2006/0031882 A1, Feb. 9, 2006).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 58–60 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Florence, Candelore, Bacso (US Pub.
2002/0083434 A1, June 27, 2002), and Escobar (US Pub.
2002/0053084 A1, May 2, 2002).
5. The Examiner rejected claims 61, 62, and 64–69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Florence, Candelore, Bacso, Escobar,
and Cordray.

Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

4
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. Candelore teaches time-slots;
2. Florence teaches the use of predetermined time slots or inclusion
of channels with respect to a time slot; and
3. Swix teaches different preferred channel lists for different modes
of content delivery.

ANALYSIS
Claims 10 and 39
Appellants argue that the combination of Florence in view of
Candelore does not teach the limitations of “time period” and “time slot” as
recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 8–9). In particular, Appellants argue that
Candelore does not disclose time slots but rather durations of time, which at
best could be considered “a time period” (App. Br. 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings in the Answer and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The Examiner finds (Ans. 29), and we agree, that Candelore teaches
that programs can be tracked for the length of time that the program was
viewed for a time interval (see Tables 1–5, and in particular Tables 4 and 5).
As the Examiner notes, this is consistent with Appellants’ Specification
which states “a predetermined time slot may be every Monday between 6:00
and 7:00 PM, local time” (Spec. ¶ 117). In other words, a predetermined
time slot is a program, and certainly, Candelore describes programs being
Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

5
monitored. Candelore furthermore describes the frequency of the programs
being watched (see Table 5).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 10 and for
the same reason the rejection of claim 39. We also affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 11–29, 31–38, and 40–57 for the same
reasons as no additional arguments were presented with respect to these
claims.

Claims 25 and 53
Appellants argue that Florence does not disclose the use of
predetermined time slots or inclusion of channels with respect to a time slot
(App. Br. 10).
We do not agree with Appellants. We agree with the Examiner (Ans.
30) that Florence discloses the limitation of “wherein said preferred channel
list only includes ones of said plural channels that have a determined value
for a predetermined time slot greater than a predetermined amount.” In
particular, Florence teaches that the “favorite tables” (i.e., preferred channel
list) includes a channel station number, cumulative viewing time over a
predefined time (i.e., cumulative time of time slots being watched) and/or
frequency of the viewing over a predefined time (i.e., frequency the user
watched the particular time slots) (see ¶¶ 46–48).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 and for
the same reason the rejection of claim 53.

Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

6
Claims 26 and 54
Appellants argue that Swix does not teach the limitation of “mode of
content delivery” (App. Br. 11). In particular, Appellants argue that Swix
does not teach different preferred channel lists for different modes of content
delivery (App. Br. 11). Appellants further argue that there is inadequate
motivation to combine because Swix reveals that the Video on Demand
(VOD) is accessed without regard to an option list being presented to a first
or a second mode (App. Br. 12).
We do not agree with Appellants. At the outset, we note that the
claim does not require that the “first preferred channel list” and the “second
preferred channel list” be different. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner that Swix teaches generation of an option list in either a simple
display or a picture-in-picture (PIP) display (i.e., two different display
modes; see Ans. 12 and Swix ¶ 32). While there is no explicit teaching of
two option lists being displayed at two modes, “the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). When there is a finite or limited number of
modes of display (i.e., either simple display or PIP), ordinary artisans would
have had good reason to pursue any of the options for any information to
display (i.e., option lists) within their technical grasp. See id. at 421.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 54.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 27, 28, 55,
and 56 for which no additional arguments were presented.

Appeal 2012-002670
Application 11/812,779

7
Claims 2, 3, and 58-69
Appellants did not raise any arguments with respect to the pending
claims 2, 3, and 58–69. Accordingly, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2, 3, and 58–69.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. Candelore teaches time-slots;
2. Florence teaches the use of predetermined time slots or inclusion
of channels with respect to a time slot; and
3. Swix teaches different preferred channel lists for different modes
of content delivery.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 10–29, and 31–69 is
affirmed.
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

msc