Ex Parte BeyabaniDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201712236612 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/236,612 09/24/2008 Syed Zafar BEYABANI 20080291 8251 7590 06/01/201725537 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER TELAN, MICHAEL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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 Ex parte SYED ZAFAR BEYABANI Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application concerns systems and methods that “may permit a user of a subscription television service to view multiple panels on a display in addition to a current program.” Specification 111, filed Sept., 24, 2008 (“Spec.”). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing, for presentation and by a device, program content from a subscription television service in a first area of a display; receiving, by the device a signal to initiate a multi-panel browsing mode on the display; determining, by the device and based on receiving the signal, a program for presentation on the display, the program being determined based on preference information stored in a profile associated with a user; sending, by the device and to a server and based on determining the program, a program request for the program; receiving, by the device and from the server and based on the program request, program information associated with the program, the program information including a channel number for the program at a time associated with the program request; sending, by the device and to the server and based on receiving the signal, a request for information; receiving, by the device and from the server and based on the request for information, other program information; modifying, by the device and based on receiving the program information and the other program information, a size of the first area of the display; and 2 Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 providing, for presentation by the device and based on the modifying, a multi-panel view on the display; the multi-panel view including a first panel with the program content in the modified first area of the display, a second panel with the program based on the program information received from the server, and a third panel with another program based on the other program information. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2003/0117430 Al; June 26, 2003) andNoh (US 2004/0221306 Al; Nov. 4, 2004). Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reynolds, Noh, Lawler et al. (US 5,907,323; May 25, 1999), and Gemelos et al. (US 2007/0066490 Al; March 22, 2007). Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reynolds, Noh, and Craner (US 2009/0025027 Al; Jan. 22, 2009). Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reynolds, Noh, and Ishikawa (US 5,537,152; July 16, 1996). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments, and we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. To the extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning, findings, and conclusions as set forth in the appealed action and 3 Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 the Answer. We address Appellant’s arguments below; Appellant has waived arguments Appellant failed to timely raise or adequately present. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Appellant argues the Examiner’s combination of Reynolds and Noh does not teach or suggest “receiving, by the device and from the server and based on the program request, program information associated with the program” and “the program information including a channel number for the program at a time associated with the program request” as recited in claim 1. Among other things, Appellant asserts claim 1 requires determining the recited “program” based on (1) a signal to initiate a multi-panel browsing mode and (2) preference information stored in a profile associated with a user. Appeal Brief 8, filed May 20, 2015 (“App. Br.”). Appellant contends neither Reynolds nor Noh teaches or suggests determining a program in this manner. See App. Br. 8—10; Reply Brief 3—4, filed Nov. 25, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). We disagree. As an initial matter, Appellant’s arguments concerning these limitations largely address Reynolds’s and Noh’s teachings individually. See, e.g., App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3^4. But the Examiner found a combination of Reynolds’ and Noh’s teachings suggest the disputed limitations. Specifically, the Examiner found Reynolds teaches much of the disputed “receiving” and “program information” limitations but does not does not teach “the program being determined based on preference information stored in a profile associated with a user.” See Final Rejection 8—10, mailed December 22, 2014 (“Final Act.”). The Examiner found Noh teaches “the program being determined” limitation. See id. at 10. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to combine Reynolds’s and 4 Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 Noh’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. at 10—11. Appellant’s arguments against Reynolds’s and Noh’s teachings individually have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. “[0]ne cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (C.C.P.A. 1981) Appellant’s other arguments are equally unpersuasive. Appellant contends Reynolds does not teach or suggest determining the “program” based on “a signal to initiate a multi-panel browsing mode on the display.” App. Br. 10. But as found by the Examiner, Reynolds discloses creating a program guide window 80 that displays a television channel of interest in a separate window when the user presses a video window key 51 while browsing program listings. See Reynolds | 53, Fig. 6a; Final Act. 5—A (citing Reynolds 1 53). As shown in Figure 6a, pressing the video window key 51 results in a “multi-panel browsing mode” including program guide window 80, current channel 77, and program guide display 70. See Reynolds Fig. 6a. Although Appellant argues this process does not teach or suggests determining a “program” before receiving “program information associated with the program” as required by claim 1, App. Br. 10, Reynolds indicates otherwise. The multi-panel display depicted in Reynolds’s Figure 6a includes a channel number (“CH 11”) in the comer of the window that displays channel 11. See Reynolds Fig. 6a, item 80. This would have suggested to one of skill in the art that, in response to selecting channel 11, 5 Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 Reynolds system receives and displays information about the channel, including the channel number.1 Appellant next argues the Examiner’s combination of Reynolds and Noh fail to teach or suggest the following limitations recited in claim 1: providing, for presentation by the device and based on the modifying, a multi-panel view on the display; the multi-panel view including a first panel with the program content in the modified first area of the display, a second panel with the program based on the program information received from the server, and a third panel with another program based on the other program information. See App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 5—8. Specifically, Appellant contends Reynolds’s program display guide 70 cannot serve as the recited “second panel.” App. Br. 12. Appellant also argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s combination of Reynolds and Noh improperly relies on hindsight and would “change the intent” of Reynolds. Reply Br. 6— 7. We disagree. Regarding the “second panel,” the Examiner mapped Reynolds’s program guide window 80 to this element, not Reynolds’s program display guide 70 as argued by Appellant. See Ans. 10. As for the other arguments noted above, Appellant waived these arguments by failing 1 Appellant also contends Reynolds’s program guide display 70 “is not an actual program.” App. Br. 11. Appellant, however, fails to explain why Reynolds’s program guide display 70 is not a “program” within the meaning of the claims. We therefore find this contention unpersuasive. Cf. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). 6 Appeal 2016-001808 Application 12/236,612 to raise them in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for claims 2, 3, 5—10, and 12—22, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these arguments. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation