Ex Parte Kwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 6, 2012

11226693 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 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. 11/226,693 09/14/2005 Seong-Geun Kwon 678-1988 5196 66547 7590 12/07/2012 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LUONG, ALAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/07/2012 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 SEONG-GEUN KWON and CHANG-SUL PARK ____________ Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention searches guide data for a digital broadcasting program via particular search information. See generally Abstract; Spec. 5- 6. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for searching guide data of digital broadcasting programs, comprising the steps of: receiving search information input by a user to search the guide data; detecting, from the guide data of the digital broadcasting programs, at least one digital broadcasting program corresponding to the search information and broadcasting program information associated therewith, when the search information is input, and storing a list of the at least one detected digital broadcasting program and the detected broadcasting program information in a memory; and displaying the stored list of the at least one detected digital broadcasting program and the stored detected broadcasting program information channel by channel, when there is no further guide data to search, wherein the search information is at least one of a broadcasting program start time and a broadcasting name associated with the at least one digital broadcasting program for which the user searches. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakada (US 2003/0200545 A1; Oct. 23, 2003) and Jeon (US 2003/0070170 A1; Apr. 10, 2003). Ans. 3-9.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December 9, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 18, 2010 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed April 16, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 3 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Nakada’s method for searching guide data includes receiving “search information” (i.e., keywords) input by a user to search the guide data, where the search information is a broadcasting name (i.e., program title) associated with at least one digital broadcasting program for which the user searches. Ans. 3-4, 10. According to the Examiner, Nakada teaches every recited feature of representative claim 1, except for displaying the stored detected broadcasting program information channel- by-channel, but cites Jeon as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 4-5. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest that the search information is at least one of a broadcasting program start time and a broadcasting name associated with the at least one digital broadcasting program for which the user searches, as claimed. App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 1- 3. According to Appellants, Nakada’s keywords are not the recited information for which the user searches, but rather merely registered, and Nakada’s keyword adding process likewise does not teach or suggest the recited search information. Id. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Nakada and Jeon, collectively, would have taught or suggested receiving search information input by a user to search guide data, where the search information is at least one of a broadcasting program start time and a broadcasting name associated with at least one digital broadcasting program for which the user searches? Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-5 We begin by noting that because this appeal turns on the Examiner’s findings regarding Nakada, we confine our discussion to that reference. As the Examiner indicates, claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that the search information is at least one of (1) a broadcasting program start time, and (2) a broadcasting name associated with the program for which the user searches. Ans. 10. Thus, the cited prior art need only teach or suggest one of these two recited alternatives to satisfy the limitation, as is the case here. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Nakada’s program title keywords as corresponding to the recited search information, for these keywords at least suggest the name of a program for which the user searches. Id. (citing Nakada ¶¶ [0015], [0047]). Although these keywords are input via operational section 105 (e.g., keyboard and mouse) and registered in memory unit 107 (Nakada ¶¶ [0040], [0046-54]; Fig. 2), they are nonetheless later retrieved and used to search program information to determine whether characters associated with that information match a keyword. Nakada ¶¶ [0059-79], [0088]; Figs. 3-4. If so, the program is deemed to be a matched program. Nakada ¶ [0079]; Fig. 4 (step S408). The clear import of this discussion is that the user’s entering a particular program’s title to register that keyword—a keyword that is later used to search program guide data to retrieve corresponding programs—is a key initial step of this search. See Nakada ¶ [0088]. In short, these name- based entered keywords teach the recited search information. Appellants’ Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 5 contention that Nakada’s user-based registration process is a “setting” process and not a “search” process (Reply Br. 2) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim which does not preclude user- based keyword registration as part of a search process that uses those keywords. That Nakada’s system (1) notifies the user when matching programs are found from this name-based keyword search, and (2) displays the results only bolsters our conclusion that the user’s entering this keyword for registration is a key aspect of the search process. Nakada ¶¶ [0060-61], [0088]; Fig. 3 (step S307). Although Appellants contend that the claim recites that search information is received by a user (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2), the claim contains no such requirement. Rather, claim 1 recites that search information is “input by a user to search the guide data”: a limitation indicating that information is received from a user—not by a user. Accord claim 6 (reciting an interface unit for receiving search information from a user); Abstract (noting that a user inputs search information to search for a program). Lastly, Appellants arguments regarding Nakada’s keyword adding process (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2) do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Nakada’s search process that uses registered search information, including the program’s title, to retrieve associated programs. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 3-5 not separately argued with particularity. Appeal 2010-007090 Application 11/226,693 6 Claims 6 and 8-10 Because Appellants reiterate arguments made in connection with claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-4), we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 6 for reasons similar to those indicated for claim 1. To the extent that Appellants separately argue the recited data reception unit, this argument was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and, therefore, is waived as untimely. Compare App. Br. 8-9 with Reply Br. 3-4. Accordingly, we decline to address that belated argument here. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 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 gvw