Ex Parte Nishikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2013

10806767 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013)

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