Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13275817 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/275,817 10/18/2011 Seth Guy Hill
36738 7590 08/31/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
201003603.01 1052
EXAMINER
IDOWU, OLUGBENGA 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SETH GUY HILL, TED MARK DUNN, and JAIME CHEE
Appeal2015-002259
Application 13/275,817
Technology Center 2400
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corp. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2015-002259
Application 13/275,817
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to video searching using TVs
and user interfaces (UI) related to the searching. Spec. 1 :5---6.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a viewer watching an audio-video (AV)
program on a video display, selection of a "Video Search"
application indicating viewer desire to obtain information about
a currently playing AV program;
responsive to selection of the "Video Search" application,
invoking the "Video Search" application;
executing the "Video Search" application to send a name
of the currently playing AV program to a server associated with
a database to cause the server to execute a search of the database;
receiving from the server metadata related to the currently
playing AV program, the metadata including information about
the currently playing AV program and the cast thereof;
presenting information from the metadata related to the
currently playing AV program on the video display along with
the currently playing AV program;
responsive to selection of an item of information from the
metadata, executing the "Video Search" application to send a
name of a cast member associated with the currently playing AV
program to a server associated with a database to cause the server
to execute a search of the database associated with the with the
server responsive to viewer input indicating viewer desire to
obtain information about the cast member;
receiving from the server metadata related to the case
member, the metadata including names of AV programs other
than the currently playing AV program with which the cast
member is associated; and
presenting information from the metadata related to the
cast member on the video display along with the currently
playing AV program, wherein responsive to selection of a video
2
Appeal2015-002259
Application 13/275,817
tab having a label in a first mode established by a mode selector
input element, the method includes presenting a description of a
currently input AV program to the display, and wherein
responsive to selection of the video tab having the same label in
a second mode, the method includes presenting titles on the
display of AV programs other than the currently input AV
program.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tomsen et al. (US 2002/0147984 Al; Oct. 10, 2002), Krieger et al. (US
2012/0151530 Al; June 14, 2012), and Schindler et al. (US 5,675,390; Oct.
7, 1997).
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1 and 18
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding T omsen "teaches
executing the 'Video Search' application to send a name of the currently
playing AV program." App. Br. 6.
We disagree. The Examiner finds T omsen teaches sending an
information request to the server with contextual information that can
include "an indication of a specific television program being watched." See
Ans. 16 (citing Tomsen i-fi-f 16, 72, 74--79). We agree with the Examiner that
this teaches or suggests sending the name of the currently playing AV
program as claimed. Additionally, Appellants have not presented evidence
sufficient to show that sending the name of the currently playing program
was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over" sending contextual information
3
Appeal2015-002259
Application 13/275,817
indicating the program being viewed. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding T omsen "teaches
receiving from the server metadata related to the currently playing AV
program, with the metadata including information about the currently
playing AV program and the cast thereof." App. Br. 6. We are not
persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, T omsen
teaches that the information request includes user preferences for receiving
supplemental information regarding actors and actresses in the currently
viewed program and returning search results from the server that include
content related to those actors and actresses. Ans. 16-17 (citing Tomsen
i-fi-185-86). We agree with the Examiner that Tomsen, therefore, teaches or
suggests receiving from the server metadata including information about the
cast of the currently playing AV program.
Appellants argue that the combination of Tomsen, Krieger, and
Schindler does not teach or suggest receiving metadata related to a cast
member including names of other programs with which the cast member is
associated and doing so using a multi-mode tab. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
argue Schinder "[a ]t its most relevant ... discusses a 'context sensitive help
engine', not a dual mode button." App. Br. 8. We disagree. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner that Krieger teaches receiving supplemental
information including recent movies of the cast member. Ans. 17. Further
we agree with the Examiner that Schindler teaches a help button with the
same label that operates as a multi-mode button based on the screen in which
it appears. Ans. 17 (citing Schindler, Figs. 14C, 14D, and 19:5-11). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Krieger and Schindler
4
Appeal2015-002259
Application 13/275,817
teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, rece1vmg names of
other programs with which a cast member is associated using a multi-mode
tab.
II. Claim 11
Appellants argue again that Schindler teaches only "a 'context
sensitive help engine', not a dual mode button." App. Br. 8. As we
explained above with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that
Schindler teaches a help button with the same label that operates in different
modes depending on what screen it appears in. Ans. 17 (citing Schindler,
Figs. 14C, 14D, and 19:5-11).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, and 18. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of all
pending dependent claims, for which AppeHants do not present arguments
for separate patentability.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5