Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11857983 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 11/857,983 09/19/2007 Jae-Ho KIM 1398-085 1907 66547 7590 10/31/2012 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER ALATA, YASSIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 JAE-HO KIM, JE GIRL LEE, and JEONG WOOK SEO ____________ Appeal 2011-007281 Application 11/857,983 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER , Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007281 Application 11/857,983 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 3 and 5-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to selecting a favorite broadcasting time and a favorite broadcast program according to a usage record of the broadcasting receiver, finding the favorite broadcast program in the electronic program guide, and outputting the favorite broadcast program. Abstract. Independent claim 3, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 3. A method for selecting a favorite program in a digital broadcast receiver, the method comprising: receiving an electronic program guide or an electronic service guide in a broadcasting mode; analyzing broadcast program information of the received electronic program guide or the electronic program guide; selecting a favorite broadcasting time and a favorite broadcast program according to a usage record of the digital broadcast receiver; preparing a database of the selected favorite broadcast program; comparing the database with the broadcast program information of the electronic program guide or the electronic service guide; and outputting a favorite broadcast program list of programs being broadcast at a current time according to the comparison result, Appeal 2011-007281 Application 11/857,983 3 wherein outputting the favorite broadcast program list of programs comprises determining another favorite broadcast program at the time, if a channel change command is input in a broadcasting mode, and outputting another favorite broadcast program list. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Rothmuller (US Patent No. 6,075,526, June 13, 2000). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rothmuller and Sie (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0221303 A1, November 4, 2004). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether Rothmuller teaches the limitations of “comparing the database with the broadcast program information of the electronic program guide or the electronic service guide; and outputting a favorite broadcast program list of programs being broadcast at a current time according to the comparison result” as recited in claim 3. ANALYSIS Claims 3 and 7-10 Appellants argue that Rothmuller does not teach the limitations of “comparing the database with the broadcast program information of the electronic program guide or the electronic service guide; and outputting a Appeal 2011-007281 Application 11/857,983 4 favorite broadcast program list of programs being broadcast at a current time according to the comparison result” as recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 4). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-12) that Rothmuller teaches comparing the database (the “favorite program list”) with the electronic program guide (col. 7, ll. 55-58) and outputting a favorite broadcast program list of programs being broadcast at a current time according to the comparison result (col. 8, ll. 5-8). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 7-10 which were not separately argued. Claims 5 and 6 We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5 and 6 which were not separately argued (see App. Br. 5). CONCLUSION Rothmuller teaches the limitations of “comparing the database with the broadcast program information of the electronic program guide or the electronic service guide; and outputting a favorite broadcast program list of programs being broadcast at a current time according to the comparison result” as recited in claim 3. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 and 5-10 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-007281 Application 11/857,983 5 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) (2010). AFFIRMED babc