Ex Parte Henning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2012

11379127 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/379,127 04/18/2006 Mikael Henning PS05 0923US1 9295
58342 7590 12/31/2012
WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
LEBASSI, AMANUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2012 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 MIKAEL HENNING and MARKUS ANDREASSON
____________

Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-18, and 21-26. Claims 3-5, 13, and 19-20
have been cancelled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention is directed to a method and system for
managing video data based on a predicted next channel selection to improve
switching from one channel to another. (See generally Spec. p. 1, ll. 5-8;
Abstract.)
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below with key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of processing video data with an electronic
equipment, the video data available from a time-sliced data
stream having video data corresponding to each of a plurality of
channels, comprising:
a) receiving video data corresponding to one of the
channels from the plurality of channels that is currently selected
by the user and driving a display in accordance with the video
data corresponding to the currently selected channel;
b) predicting which one of the remaining channels from
the plurality of channels that the user may next select by
separately predicting a plurality of predicted next channels with
each of plural prediction techniques and designating one
predicted next channel from among the plurality of separately
predicted next channels; and
c) receiving and buffering video data corresponding only
to the designated predicted channel.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14-18, and 21-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watson (US 2007/0188665 A1;
issued Aug. 16, 2007, filed Feb. 10, 2006) and Castillo (2004/0001500 A1;
pub. Jan. 1, 2004). (Ans. 3-12.)

Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Watson teaches every limitation of claim 1
except for separately predicting a plurality of predicted next channels with
each of plural prediction techniques. (Ans. 3-4.) The Examiner then relies
on Castillo for teaching this limitation. (Ans. 4.)
Appellants, however, contend that Watson fails to teach or suggest (1)
designating one predicted next channel from among the plurality of
predicted next channels and (2) buffering video data corresponding only to
the designated channel. (App. Br. 9.) In particular, Appellants argue
Watson does not teach or suggest these limitations because Watson
describes buffering multiple channels. (App. Br. 9.) Similarly, Appellants
assert that Castillo does not cure the deficiencies of Watson because Castillo
also buffers more than one predicted next channel. (App. Br. 9-10.)
With respect to claims 21-26, Appellants argue that Castillo fails to
teach or suggest the specific weighting and scoring techniques of claims 21-
26. (App. Br. 9-10.)

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Watson and Castillo. In particular,
we are not persuaded by Appellants that the cited prior art collectively fails
to teach or suggest (1) designating one predicted next channel from among
the plurality of predicted next channels and (2) buffering video data
corresponding only to the designated channel.
Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127

4
Here, Appellants argue that because the cited prior art teaches
buffering multiple channels, i.e., more than one channel, it does not teach or
suggest designating and buffering only one channel. (App. Br. 7-10; Reply
Br. 2-5.) We disagree.
First, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. For example, in discussing the disputed limitations, Appellants assert
that “[i]n other words, only one predicted next channel ultimately is
designated and buffered….” (App. Br. 8 (emphasis of “only” added)) and
“[t]hus, multiple prediction techniques are combined to designate one
predicted next channel, which alone is buffered.” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis of
“alone” added).) Notably absent, however, from the claimed designating
limitation is language limiting the claim to only one predicted next channel.
Instead, claim 1 merely recites “designating one predicted next channel.”
Further, the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” permits additional
elements, such as including additional predicted channels. See e.g.,
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim.”). Appellants fail to present
any persuasive argument or evidence to limit claim 1 to designating only
one, single predicted channel.
Second, under an obviousness analysis, Watson at least teaches or
suggests designating a single predicted channel and buffering that channel.
As identified by the Examiner, Watson describes designating single
predicted channels, such as the next highest channel and next lowest
channel, and buffering those channels. (Ans. 4, 13-16 (citing Watson
Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127

5
¶¶ [0032] and [0033]1.) And Watson teaches decoding and buffering data
for “one or more broadcast channels in addition to the currently selected
one.” (Watson ¶ [0032] (emphasis added).) Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and therefore we agree with
the Examiner that the cited prior art collectively teaches or suggests (1)
designating one predicted next channel from among the plurality of
predicted next channels and (2) buffering video data corresponding only to
the designated channel.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1; independent claims
14 and 17, which recite commensurate limitations; and dependent claims 2,
6, 8-12, 15, 16, and 18, not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 21-26
Claims 21-26 recite additional features regarding designating the
predicted next channel. (App. Br. 10.) Appellants’ arguments with respect
to these claims are also unavailing.
We disagree with Appellants that Castillo “merely describes a group
of singular prediction techniques, each technique being based upon a type of
viewing behavior” and that “the prediction techniques are not combined at
all to designate one predicted next channel.” (App. Br. 10-11 (emphasis in
original).) To the contrary, as identified by the Examiner, Castillo teaches
prediction based on scores or results, such as frequency viewed. (Ans. 10-12
(citing Castillo ¶¶ [0021]).) In other words, Castillo teaches predicting a

1 While the Examiner does not expressly cite to ¶ [0033], the Examiner
expressly refers to the Channel Up and Channel Down teachings in that
paragraph.
Appeal 2010-006953
Application 11/379,127

6
channel based on counting or adding the number of times that one channel
has been viewed in comparison to another. And Castillo also describes
using statistical relationship between channels in the prediction analysis.
(Ans. 10-12 (citing Castillo ¶¶ [0021]).) Thus, based on the record before
us, we are not persuaded that the prior art collectively fails to teach or
suggest the limitations of claims 21-26.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-18, and 21-
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-18, and 21-26
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

rwk