Ex Parte Nishikawa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 201310806767 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/806,767 03/23/2004 Yuko Nishikawa 7114-81235-US 2440 37123 7590 05/28/2013 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER TAYLOR, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2013 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 YUKO NISHIKAWA, DAYAN GOLDEN, MICHAEL A. BERGERON, HIMGAN WIBISONO, and PHILIP MCKAY ____________ Appeal 2011-008330 Application 10/806,767 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008330 Application 10/806,767 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to interactive programming guides (Spec. ¶ [0009]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of selecting content by way of a multi-source interactive programming guide apparatus, comprising the steps of: providing access to a plurality of characterizing descriptors as individually correspond to a plurality of discrete selectable items of audio/video content, wherein the plurality of characterizing descriptors comprises at least two elements selected from a group consisting essentially of a programming network identifier, an indication of source, a network call sign for a station, a broadcast starting time, a broadcast stopping time, a description of the content, information pertaining to the content, and indication of a bearer medium, a sample of the content, a promotional sample of the content, a previously prepared trailer, and a preview of the content, and wherein a first plurality of the discrete selectable items of audio/video content differ from a second plurality of the discrete selectable items of audio/video content with respect to at least one parameter selected from a group consisting essentially of a bearer medium, a primary transmission service provider, and a data format; Appeal 2011-008330 Application 10/806,767 3 providing at least one smart filter for facilitating determination of a particular one of the discrete selectable items of data, the at least one smart filter providing step comprising providing an enhanced suggestion engine for making at least one recommendation based on at least one parameter selected from a group consisting essentially of a content nature uniqueness, a viewer identification, and a keyword, the at least one smart filter providing step comprising providing each at least one smart filter being customizable for each at least one user, wherein the at least one smart filter simultaneously considers content across a plurality of media, thereby providing a coordinated joint display comprising a plurality of integrated results, the plurality of integrated results comprising an aggregate pool of candidate viewing choices being reducible on a basis of filter selection criteria from at least one element selected from a group consisting essentially of a plurality of different sources and a plurality of different data formats; providing at least one selection criterion; applying the at least one selection criterion with respect to the characterizing descriptors of the first plurality of the discrete selectable items of audio/video content and the second plurality of the discrete selectable items of audio/video content to provide a resultant selection of the first plurality of discrete selectable items of audio/video content and the second plurality of the discrete selectable items of audio/video content; displaying programming guide information comprising information regarding at least a portion of the resultant selection; supporting a programming guide navigation; reviewing and browsing the information regarding the at least one portion of the resultant selection; if selecting a particular item of the plurality of discrete selectable items, providing a selection response; and Appeal 2011-008330 Application 10/806,767 4 if not selecting a particular item of the plurality of discrete selectable items, returning to the supporting step. REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Sie (US Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0233656 A1, Dec. 18, 2003), Fries (US Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0078807 A1, Apr. 22, 2004), and McCoskey (US Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0028889 A1, Feb. 6, 2003). ANALYSIS Appellants, generally, have not provided substantive arguments, as recognized by the Examiner (see, for example, Ans. 23-27, 33, 38). We agree. Appellants have merely recited claim language and concluded the references do not disclose the quoted claim language. Appellants fail to present substantive analysis explaining why the features in the cited references relied upon by the Examiner do not disclose the disputed claim limitations. Simply pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt to point out how or why the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art does not amount to a separate argument for patentability (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004); see also In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). We also adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own including the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 28-40). With respect to Appellants’ contention that McCoskey does not teach or suggest Appeal 2011-008330 Application 10/806,767 5 simultaneous consideration of content across a plurality of media in a plurality of data formats as claimed (App. Br. 21), we agree with the Examiner that McCoskey discloses performing searches in parallel, which is considered simultaneous (Ans. 28). We also agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim terms “smart filter” and “enhanced content suggestion engine” as no definitions have been provided for these terms in Appellants’ Specification (Ans. 28-30). For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error as Appellants’ have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation