Ex Parte Beyabani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

12236612 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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