Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

12222796 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/222,796 08/15/2008 21171 7590 04/04/2016 STAAS & HALSEYLLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sang-Wook Park 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. 1907.1252 5984 EXAMINER THOMAS, JASON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): ptomail@s-n-h.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANG-WOOK PARK, JONG-HO LEA, JU-HWAN LEE, and JI-HYE CHUNG1 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 Technology Center 2400 Before PETER P. CHEN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b)(l). We affirm-in-part. Invention Appellants' invention relates to providing a three-dimensional guide for content browsing, where the content is classified according to a first, second, and third classification basis. For example, when the content is 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 broadcast programs, the bases may be channel, time and date; when the content is moving pictures, the bases may be date, category and popularity. A browsing guide is output in which each axis corresponds to a classification basis. A user selection may change the correspondence between axis and classification basis on the browsing guide being output. (Spec. 2, 5-7, Abstract.) Illustrative claims 1 and 25 are reproduced below~ with key limitations emphasized: 1. An apparatus for browsing content, the apparatus compnsmg: a metadata storage unit storing information on content, wherein the information has at least three classification bases; a browsing-guide-generation unit to generate a browsing guide in respective planes defined by a first classification basis corresponding to a first axis, a second classification basis corresponding to a second axis, and a third classification basis corresponding to a third axis; a user-selection unit to receive a user selection of one of the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification basis; an output unit to output the browsing guide generated by the browsing-guide-generation unit, wherein when the user selection is received from the user-selection unit, the output unit changes one or more of the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification basis to correspond to a different axis from among the first, second, and third axes. 25. An apparatus for browsing content, comprising: a metadata storage unit to store information on content, wherein the information comprises a first classification basis, a second classification basis, and a third classification basis; a browsing-guide-generation unit to generate a browsing guide along a first, second, and third axis based on the stored 2 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 information having the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification basis; and an output unit to output the browsing guide along with an icon corresponding to at least one of the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification; and a user-selection unit to receive a user selection of the icon, which designates one of the at least three classification bases to correspond to the first axis, wherein the output unit outputs the browsing guide with the classification basis designated by the user selection corresponding to the first axis. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as anticipated by Kikinis (US 2010/0077434 Al; Mar. 25, 2010) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Finseth et al. (US 6,754,906 Bl; June 22, 2004) ("Finseth"), Ito et al. (US 2006/0095543 Al; May 4, 2006) ("Ito") and Allport (US 6,483,548 Bl; Nov. 19, 2002). (Final Action 12-17.) The Examiner rejects claims 2-5, 11-14, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport. (Final Action 17- 20.) The Examiner rejects claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, Allport, and Lim (Korean Pub. No. 10-2004-0012297; Feb. 11, 2004). (Final Action 20-21.) The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, Allport, Lim, and Viswanathan et al. (US 2005/0113812 Al; May 26, 2005). (Final Action 21-22.) 3 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 The Examiner rejects claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis and Goh (US 5,678,015; Oct. 14, 1997). (Final Action 22-24.) ISSUES Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues: Did the Examiner err in finding that Kikinis discloses "a user- selection unit to receive a user selection" of a classification basis, and an output unit to output a browsing guide, "wherein when the user selection is received from the user-selection unit, the output unit changes one or more of the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification basis to correspond to a different axis from among the first, second, and third axes," as per claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport teaches or suggests "a user-selection unit to receive a user selection" of a classification basis, and an output unit to output a browsing guide, "wherein when the user selection is received from the user- selection unit, the output unit changes one or more of the first classification basis, the second classification basis, and the third classification basis to correspond to a different axis from among the first, second, and third axes," as per claim 1? Did the Examiner err in combining Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kikinis and Goh teaches or suggests the output of an icon and the user selection of that icon, as per claim 25? 4 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 ANALYSIS Â§ 102(a) Rejection - Kikinis Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kikinis is flawed because Kikinis does not disclose a user selection unit to receive a user selection of one of the first, second, and third classification bases (Appeal Br. 9-12), and that "when the user selection is received" the output unit changes the correspondence between a classification basis and an axis of the displayed browsing guide (Appeal Br. 12-13.) With respect to this anticipation rejection, we address only this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments with respect to this anticipation rejection. Kikinis relates to the display of an electronic programming guide displayed in a three dimensional mesh, with axes corresponding to classification bases. (Kikinis i-f 34, Abstract.) In one embodiment, along one axis, each row represents a channel, and along another axis each column represents a time slot. (Id. at i-f 48, Fig. 2.) Along the third axis, the planes represent different user-selected categories, for example levels of preference, with objects representing television programs in a "preferred" category displayed in a first plane, television programs in the "neutral" category in a second plane, and televisions programs in a "don't prefer" category in a third plane. (Id. at i-f 45, Fig. 2.) These preferences are set by the user. (Id. at i-fi-1 45, 49, 53, 59.) We agree with Appellants that Kikinis does not disclose the claimed limitation of a user selection of a classification basis corresponding to an axis. (Appeal Br. 9-10.) Kikinis discloses that the axes of the electronic 5 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 program guide ("EPG") relate to time, channel, and user preference for the displayed programs, thus these correlate to the three classification bases of claim 1. (Kikinis i-fi-1 45, 48.) Kikinis does describe user input, but, as Appellants note, Kikinis describes only a user inputting preference information designating in which plane along the preference axis programs will be displayed. (Appeal Br. 10.) The Examiner is correct that in Kikinis a user can change the "user's selection of preferred categories and/or criteria." (Answer 3.) We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 15), however, that this teaching of Kikinis concerns inputting classification information that changes where a program is displayed along the preference axis (for example, that newscasts are a preferred program, see Kikinis i152) and not the selection of a classification basis (e.g. "preference" or "time") and a corresponding change in the axis which will be used to display that classification basis. And while the Examiner notes that "Kikinis acknowledges that 'Any variety of shapes, sizes, and alignments of listing and listing planes could be created within the scope of this invention"' (Answer 6), Kikinis does not describe the output unit changing the browsing guide with respect to the correspondence between classification basis and axis in response to user input, as required by the claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) rejection of claim 10. Claim 1 - Â§ 103(a) Rejection - Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as obvious is flawed, reiterating their arguments with respect to the teachings of Kikinis 6 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 as applied to the user selection of a classification basis, discussed supra. (Appeal Br. 13-15.) However, the Examiner's obviousness rejection is based on a combination of Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport, and the Examiner finds Finseth teaches or suggests the user creating a user-defined electronic program guide and allowing other classification bases to be selected for use. (Final Action 15-16; Answer 7.) Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings regarding Finseth's teachings; rather, Appellants' arguments are based on the Examiner's findings regarding Kikinis and Allport. The Examiner finds Allport teaches or suggests "that it was well known to change axes or ... switch which axis holds a type of information," (Answer 7; Final Action 16.) While Appellants argue that Allport merely relates to a two-axis grid (Appeal Br. 15-16), Appellants are arguing Allport in isolation. We agree with the Examiner that the disputed limitations are taught or suggested by the combination of the references, including Finseth and Kikinis, which teach or suggest three-dimensional program guides (see, e.g., Kikinis Fig. 2 and Finseth Fig. 8A), in combination with Allport and Ito. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097(Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Combining Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport Appellants argue the combination of Kikinis, Finseth, Ito, and Allport is improper because there is no rationale to combine, because the Examiner 7 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 has not established how the combination of references would function (Appeal Br. 17.). Appellants further argue the combination would change Kikinis' principle of operation (id. at 18-19) and render Kikinis unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (id. at 19.) We have considered each of these arguments and do not find them persuasive of error. We adopt the Examiner's reasoning as set forth in the Final Action (Final Action 8-10, 15-17), and we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or technical reasoning explaining why a person skilled in the art would not know how to, for example, use teachings and suggestions from Allport's two dimensional program grid with teachings and suggestions from three-dimensional program grids as taught in Kikinis and Finseth. We are mindful the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Here, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner's proffered combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and the rejections of independent claim 10 and dependent claims 2-9 and 11-24, not argued separately, for the same reasons. 8 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 Claim 25 - Â§ 103(a) Rejection-Kikinis and Goh Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 as obvious in light of the combination of Kikinis and Goh is flawed. (Appeal Br. 20-21 ). Appellants argue that Kikinis does not teach or suggest selection of an icon corresponding to a classification basis. (Id. at 20.) Goh displays a rotatable translucent cube with control points which can be used in order to reorient and rotate the cube to display different faces. (Goh 4:28- 25; 6:30-42.) Appellants argue that, in Goh, none of the axes of the cube correspond to a classification basis, as recited in claim 25. (Appeal Br. 20- 21) Additionally, Appellants argue that the control points in Goh do not teach or suggest an icon. (Id.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner's reasoning as set forth in the Final Action (at 10-12, 22-24), and we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. While Goh does not teach or suggest an electronic program guide, we agree with the Examiner that the rejection is based on a combination of the references, and that the individual attack on Goh is unavailing. Additionally, Goh teaches user input via a control point along an axis which a user can "'grab' using the mouse and 'drag' to orient the cube." (Goh 6:35-38.) We agree with the Examiner that these control points read on the claimed "icons." (Final Action 11-12.) Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 25. 9 Appeal2014-004367 Application 12/222,796 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10