Ex Parte Bonovich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13492517 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/492,517 06/08/2012
141451 7590 12/20/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Earl J. Bonovich
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.
DTV211053 1446
EXAMINER
DANG,HUNGQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EARL J. BONOVICH and CHARLES W. BEESON
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-24 and 26, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Final Act. l; App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as DIRECTV Group, Inc. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to displaying schedule recording events on a
second screen device that includes a controller and a display wherein
scheduled recording event conflicts are identified. Abstract.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the matter on appeal
( disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
wirelessly requesting, at a second screen device,
scheduled recording data from a set top box;
receiving, at the second screen device, scheduled
recording data from the set top box at the second screen device,
said scheduled recording data comprising a plurality of
scheduled recording events;
displaying the scheduled recording events on a calendar
screen display that simultaneously displays at least three
consecutive days, each day having a plurality of timeslots, said
scheduled recording events displayed in multiple timeslots for
the at least three days;
determining conflicting scheduled recording events
between at least two scheduled recording events based on the
scheduled recording data;
displaying a screen indicator at the second screen device
indicative of the conflict by displaying at least one of changing
a color of a font of the conflicting scheduled recording events,
underlining the conflicting scheduled recording events, placing
a box around the conflicting scheduled recording events, and
placing an indicator next to the conflicting scheduled recording
events; and
selecting the screen indicator to initiate removing the
conflict.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Knudson et al. (US 2005/0273819 Al;
published Dec. 8, 2005) ("Knudson"), Cary (US 2005/0222971 Al;
published Oct. 6, 2005), Dykeman et al. (US 2013/0170819 Al; published
July 4, 2013) ("Dykeman"), and Bhogal et al. (US 2010/0202754 Al;
published Aug. 12, 2010) ("Bhogal"). Final Act. 4--11.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Dykeman, Bhogal, and Uchida et
al. (US 2002/0049620 Al; published Apr. 25, 2002) ("Uchida"). Final Act
12-13.
Claims 14, 15, and 17-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi et al. (US
7,076,152 Bl; issued July 11, 2006) ("Eguchi"), Dykeman, and Bhogal.
Final Act. 13-18.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, Dykeman, Bhogal, and Uchida.
Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 26 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Knudson, Cary, Eguchi, Dykeman, Bhogal and Morris et
al. (US Patent 7,822,428 B 1; issued Oct. 26, 2010) ("Morris"). Final Act.
19-20.
3
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
ANALYSIS 2,3
Appellants argue the Examiner makes a factual error in finding
Knudson discloses the claim 1 limitation "receiving, at the second screen
device, scheduled recording data from the set top box at the second screen
device, said scheduled recording data comprising a plurality of scheduled
recording events." App. Br. 9--10 (citing Fig. 10 (screen 130); Knudson
,r 70). According to Appellants, Knudson's screen 130 is a reminder screen
and not for scheduled recording events. Id.
The Examiner states Appellants' arguments are the same arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief (filed July 17, 2017), addressed in the
Examiner's Answer, and affirmed in the Decision (dated July 11, 2016).
Ans. 20 (citing App. Br.; Dec.). We agree.
As discussed in the Decision, Appellants focus on Knudson, Figure
10, and ignore Figure 12 which describes the set-up for scheduled recording:
"'[c]urrent recordings screen 170, similar to current reminders screen 130 of
Fig. 10, may contain a list of all the user's currently scheduled recordings ..
"' Dec. 4--5 (citing Knudson ,r 88; Fig. 12).
In Reply, Appellants present similar arguments as presented in its
Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 2-3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings, and the Decision, regarding the teaching of Knudson.
2 This Appeal is closely related to Appeal 2014-008258 (Application
13/492,517) in which the Board's Decision affirmed the rejection of all
claims. We refer to the prior Board Decision as "Decision" or "Dec."
3 We note Appellants' Appeal Brief does not identify the Appeal 2014-
008258 in its statement of Related Appeals and Interferences. App. Br. 2.
We direct Appellants to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(ii), which states that Related
Appeals should be identified in the Appeal Brief.
4
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
Appellants argue Cary does not teach the limitation "displaying the
scheduled recording events on a calendar screen display that simultaneously
displays at least three consecutive days, each day having a plurality of
timeslots, said scheduled recording events displayed in multiple timeslots for
the at least three days." App. Br. 11-12. According to Appellants, "[t]he
Cary reference is directed to a system for displaying multiple tasks within an
event object of an electronic calendar," "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion
for displaying recording events therein," and "Figure 10 also only displays
time slots for two consecutive days." Id. at 11 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue Cary fails in two ways in that the claim recites
simultaneously displaying at least three consecutive days and that each day
has a plurality of time slots displaying the scheduled recording events. Id.
The Examiner states Appellants' arguments are the same arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief, addressed in the Examiner's Answer, and
affirmed in the Decision. Ans. 21 (citing App. Br. 9-10; Dec.). We agree.
As discussed in the Decision, the Examiner finds Cary teaches
calendar entries in a two day format, with multiple time slots, as well as a
weekly format. Dec. 5 ( citing Cary, Figs. 10, 11 ). As stated in the Decision:
"The Examiner finds, and we agree:
[E]ach entry in the calendar shown in Fig. 10 of Cary is a
scheduled event. As discussed in Knudson, each of the entry in
the calendar shown in the screen of Fig. 10 (or Fig. 12) is a
scheduled recording event (Fig. 10 is used for illustration since
Knudson teaches it is the same for recording [and] scheduling).
Therefore, the calendar shown in Fig. 10 of Carey can be
incorporated into the screen shown in Fig. 10 or Fig. 12 of
Knudson to enhance the user interface of the system by
providing the user with a better view of the calendar and each
scheduled recording events. While Fig. 10 of Cary illustrates a
5
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
view in which only two days with timeslots are shown. Fig. 11
illustrates a view in which all days of a week are shown without
clearly showing the timeslots in each day. Therefore, one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have
been motivated to modify the teachings Cary by incorporating
the whole week view of Fig. 11 to a timeslot view shown in
Fig. 10 to enhance the view of the screen, in which all days of a
week are shown with timeslots and scheduled events, and when
incorporated into the screen shown in Fig. 10 or Fig. 12 of
Knudson, each of the scheduled events is a scheduled recording
events. Thus, the proposed combination of Knudson and Cary
clearly teaches each and every limitation[s] of the claim."
Dec. 5---6 (quoting Ans. 18-19).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Bhogal teaches the
limitation
displaying a screen indicator at the second screen device
indicative of the conflict by displaying at least one of changing
a color of a font of the conflicting scheduled recording events,
underlining the conflicting scheduled recording events, placing
a box around the conflicting scheduled recording events, and
placing an indicator next to the conflicting scheduled recording
events.
App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added).
According to Appellants, Bhogal does not teach this limitation as
Bhogal teaches "[ m ]erely the background color of the program guide is
indicated with the conflict in the Bhogal reference." Final Act. 3 (citing
Bhogal if 25, Fig. 4B).
The Examiner finds Bhogal teaches that a background color indicates
a conflict and the "background color is displayed within a rectangular box
corresponding to a timeslot that causes the conflict." Ans. 22 ( citing Bhogal
if 25, Fig. 4B).
6
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
In the Reply, Appellants repeat the arguments regarding Knudson and
Cary and additionally argue Bhogal' s "box" is an existing "box" that is part
of the formed grid guide and it is not "indicative of conflict." Reply Br. 5---6
( citing Bhogal ,r 25).
On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument
regarding Bhogal's box. Here, "displaying a screen indicator at the second
screen device indicative of the conflict by displaying ... , placing a box
around the conflicting scheduled recording events" requires that the box
indicate the conflict. Bhogal teaches the background indicates conflict, not
the pre-existing box. The Examiner's claim interpretation is unreasonably
broad. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
independent claim 14 which recites "placing a box around the conflicting
scheduled recording events." We also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-10, 15-24, and 26. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious .... ").
Independent claim 11 is similar to claim 1, but does not recite the
limitation "displaying a screen indicator at the second screen device
indicative of the conflict by displaying at least one of .... " As discussed,
supra, regarding claim 1, the combination of Knudson and Cary teaches the
remaining disputed limitations of claim 11. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 11, and dependent claims 12 and 13 as these claims are
not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal2018-001596
Application 13/492,517
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 14--24, and
26.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-13.
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-IN-PART
8