Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020001841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

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.
14/058,934 10/21/2013 Peter Stern TWC13-20(13-39B) 9252
156874 7590 06/30/2021
Armis Intellectual Property Law, LLC
P.O. Box 1564
Westborough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
MENDOZA, JUNIOR O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
chris.lutz@armisiplaw.com
docket@armisiplaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER STERN, ETHAN WOLF, and CRAIG VANDERBORGH
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20–24, 27, and
35–64. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as a subsidiary of Time
Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to providing a better viewing experience via a
content guide indicating popularity rankings of different content currently
consumed by subscribers in a network environment, the content ranking
information indicating an identity of currently popular content amongst the
different content. See Appeal Br. 4. Appellant’s Figure 9 is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

3
Appellant’s Figure 9 shows the content guide 750-2 displayed on a
respective display screen 130-1 wherein the display region 980 termed Hot
Channels shows the selectable viewing options, e.g., 990-1, 990-2, and
990-3 or more, which can be ranked depending on popularity wherein the
selectable viewing options can include one or more symbols specifying
channel and/or content information, e.g., ESPN channel 557, and content
information, e.g., NFL GAME. Spec. 50.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
via computer processor hardware, executing
operations of:
receiving content ranking information indicating
popularity rankings of different content currently consumed
by subscribers in a network environment, the content
ranking information indicating an identity of currently
popular content amongst the different content;
selecting, based on a popularity ranking of the
currently popular content as indicated by the content ranking
information, the identity of the currently popular content for
inclusion in a content guide;
producing the content guide to include identities of
multiple selectable channels from which the different
content is available over a shared communication link in the
network environment, the content guide including a
selectable supplemental channel viewing option in addition
to the identities of the multiple selectable channels, the
selectable supplemental channel viewing option indicating
an identity of a particular selectable channel of the multiple
selectable channels that currently transmits a rendition of the
currently popular content as specified by the content ranking
information; and
initiating display of the content guide on a display
screen.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nagahama US 2014/0359668 A1 Dec. 4, 2014
Kirby US 2013/0055304 A1 Feb. 28, 2013
Donoghue US 2012/0222056 A1 Aug. 30, 2012
Klein US 2013/0086618 A1 Apr. 4, 2013
Gossweiler US 2015/0195624 A1 July 9, 2015
Wannamaker US 2013/0283318 A1 Oct. 24, 2013
Gerba US 2011/0093897 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Novak US 2002/0104099 A1 Aug. 1, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 18, 21, 22, 35–38, 40–52, 55, and 59–62 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nagahama and
further in view of Kirby. Final Act. 7.
Claims 3, 20, 57, and 58 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in
view of Donoghue. Final Act. 26.
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in view of
Klein. Final Act. 29.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in view of Gossweiler.
Final Act. 30.
Claims 23, 24, 63, and 64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in
view of Wannamaker. Final Act. 31.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

5
Claims 39 and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in view of
Gerba. Final Act. 34.
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Nagahama in view of Kirby, and further in view of
Novak. Final Act. 36.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4, 9, 18, 21, 22,
35–38, 40–52, 55,
59–62
103 Nagahama, Kirby
3, 20, 57, 58 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Donoghue
10, 27 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Klein
12 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Gossweiler
23, 24, 63, 64 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Wannamaker
39, 56 103

Nagahama, Kirby,
Gerba
53, 54 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Novak

OPINION
A. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Kirby does not teach selecting currently popular
content amongst different content and corresponding particular channel
identity as determined by content ranking information indicating popularity
rankings of different content currently consumed by subscribers in a network
environment. See Appeal Br. 18.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

6
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner is correct
that Appellant cannot show nonobvious by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See Ans. 5
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). The Examiner relies on
Nagahama to teach different content currently being consumed and
presented on different channels. See Ans. 5–6 (citing Nagahama paras. 25,
33, 48, 55, and Fig. 9). Figure 9 of Nagahama is reproduced below.

Nagahama’s Figure 9 shows aggregating popular content from different
channels and presenting them as a virtual channel; for example, Figure 9 as
illustrated above shows two virtual channels wherein virtual channel F1
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

7
shows the most popular content for all channels and virtual channel F2
shows the most popular channel for a specific genre, e.g., drama, wherein
movie AAA can be selected at channel 3 and movie BBB can be selected at
channel 2. See Ans. 7 (citing Nagahama paras. 25, 33, 48, 55, and Fig. 9).
The Examiner explains that at time 23:30, virtual channel F1 shows
movies AAA and BBB both being currently popular content consumed on
virtual channel F1 meaning that both popular movies AAA and BBB are
currently available (i.e., at time 23:30) on virtual channel F1. See Ans. 5–6
(citing Nagahama para. 55 and Fig. 9). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that the content guide (Figure 9 (e.g., Program Table PT)) includes
identities of multiple selectable channels (Figure 9 (e.g., CH1, CH2, CH3,
etc.)) from which the different content is available over a shared
communication link in the network environment, the content guide (Figure 9
(e.g., Program Table PT)) including a selectable supplemental channel
(Figure 9 (Recommended ChA)) viewing option in addition to the
identities of the multiple selectable channels (Figure 9 (e.g., CH1, CH2,
CH3, etc.)), the selectable supplemental channel viewing option indicating
an identity of a rendition of the currently popular content (Figure 9 (Drama
Series XXX, Movie AAA, Drama BBB, etc.)) as specified by the content
ranking information. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Nagahama paras. 25, 33, 48, 55,
and Fig. 9 (virtual channel F1, e.g., Recommended ChA, populated based on
programs with the higher score information, e.g., program popularity
scores)).
The Examiner finds Kirby explicitly teaches a program guide bar 138
that displays “the identity” of multiple channels such as XYZ and ECB that
are currently presenting the most popular content at a given time. See Final
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

8
Act. 8 (citing Kirby paras. 23, 31, 37, and Fig. 4); Ans. 6 (citing Kirby paras.
23, 31, 37, and Fig. 4).
The Examiner concludes that the combination would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because modifying the virtual
channels in Nagahama to include the identities of the channel as taught by
Kirby would yield the predictable result of improving the virtual channel of
Nagahama by including multiple content from different networks that are
easily and visually identifiable by having both the identities of the networks
of the popular content during a given time slot. See Final Act. 8; see also
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appellant clarifies that Nagahama does not teach different content
currently consumed by subscribers in a network because if the current time
is 21:00, then Nagahama would have to speculate as to what movies would
be popular based on being currently consumed by subscribers in the future,
e.g., at time 22:00 or 22:30. See Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Nagahama teaches that
different content currently being consumed and presented on different
channels may overlap in the virtual channel F1, as shown by Figure 9. Ans.
5. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Movie AAA (from television
channel 3) and Drama BBB (from television channel 2) broadcasted at the
same time (at time 23:30) are simultaneously presented on the popular
virtual channel F1. Id. We find the Examiner’s interpretation of the
limitation in claim 1 “popularity rankings of different content currently
consumed by subscribers” to include the overlapping of different popular
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

9
content currently consumed and presented on different channels and
simultaneously presented at the same time as reasonable. See Ans. 5–6
(citing Nagahama para. 55 and Fig. 9).
Appellant also argues that the limitation “popularity rankings of
different content currently consumed by subscribers” has to be based on
monitoring of current content consumption which distinguishes over the
cited prior art. See Reply Br. 6. This argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claims, as the monitoring of current content consumption is
not claimed. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Because
Appellant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution,
giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the
possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than
is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the
pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.”).
We also note separately that Nagahama teaches popularity of a
program based on several factors including the number of viewing devices,
audience ranking, the number of views, and the number of requests. See
Nagahama para. 20. Hence, the factor of “number of viewing devices”
would teach or suggest ranking popularity of a program or show based on
the monitoring of current content consumption or current content
consumption. Thus, it would be obvious that at time 21:00, assumed to be
the current time, the most monitored currently consumed content is Drama
Series XXX as shown in Nagahama’s Figure 9 and, at the future time of
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

10
23:30, movies AAA and BBB could be selected based on a different factor
such as a number of requests.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

B. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that while Kirby teaches playback from a primetime
channel via use of a tuned and selection of a channel form a conventional
content guide indicating primetime channels, Kirby does not teach selection
of a selectable supplemental channel viewing option corresponding to
popular content form a content guide. See Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues
that while it appears that the virtual channel (ChA) in Figure 1 of Nagahama
enables a respective viewer to select and playback content, there is no
indication that Nagahama enables a viewer to select a future time and
playback content (movies AAA and BBB) until the time slot occurs. See
Reply Br. 9 (citing Nagahama Fig. 9).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. The Examiner relies on Nagahama to teach that different content is
currently consumed and presented in the virtual channel F1 as discussed
above. See Ans. 8 and discussion supra. The Examiner does not rely on
Nagahama to teach a tuning to content at a future time, which is not claimed,
rather, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that it would have been obvious
that the virtual channel in Nagahama can show more than one popular
content being presented at the same time. See Ans. 8. The Examiner relies
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

11
on Kirby to teach “tuning” because Nagahama does not expressly state
“tuning.” See Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

C. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that there is no indication of first selecting a genre
and then displaying identities of most popularity ranked content for the
selected genre in response to receiving selection of the selectable
supplemental channel viewing option form the content guide because Kirby
does not mention selection of a genre. See Appeal Br. 22.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Nagahama teaches that the popularity score can be associated
with a genre of a program. See Ans. 9–10 (citing Nagahama para. 25). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Kirby teaches information
indicating a genre of a program, e.g., sports. See Ans. 10 (citing Kirby para.
23); Final Act. 11 (citing Kirby paras. 23, 30, and Figs. 6–7).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 9 does not require the user to make any selections,
but could be interpreted as the entertainment system selecting the most
popular content that meet a given genre. See Ans. 9-10. In other words,
both Nagahama and Kirby teach selection of a genre wherein the broadest
reasonable interpretation includes a selection made by the entertainment
system as discussed supra. Additionally, Kirby further teaches selection of a
genre by a user. See Kirby para. 37 and Figs. 6–7.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

12
D. Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Kirby does not teach a selectable viewing option
in Figure 6 that is selected to show corresponding content in the content
guide of Figure 7 to display first content and second content. See Appeal Br.
26–27.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kirby teaches a program
guide EPG including multiple channels 142, e.g., BOX, UTV, ALM, XYZ
and ECB, along with primetime channel cell 132 (similar to virtual channel
F1 of Nagahama). See Ans. 12 (citing Kirby para. 28 and Fig. 6). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Kirby teaches that once the
primetime channel cell 132 is selected by the user, the program guide filters
out the presented channels of the program guide EPG, and only presents the
selected primetime channels. See Ans. 12–13 (citing Kirby Fig. 7); Final
Act. 11 (citing Kirby paras. 23 and 30, and Figs. 6–7).
Figure 6 of Kirby is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

13

Figure 6 shows the program guide having a block guide 132 with
“PRIMETIME ANYTIME!” channels including “XYZ,” “ECB,” “BOX,”
and “ALM HDTV.” The program guide in 142 shows channels “BOX,”
“UTV,” “ALL HDTV,” “XYZ,” and “ECB.”
Kirby teaches that Figure 7 is similar to Figure 6 except the block
guide bar 138 is highlighted and selected by the user. See Kirby para. 37.
Figure 7 of Kirby is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

14

Figure 7 shows the channels 142 from Figure 6, now only consists of
“XYZ,” “ECB,” “BOX,” and “ALM HDTV,” but not “UTV.”
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the teachings of
Nagahama in view of Kirby teach that in response to receiving selection of
the selectable supplemental channel viewing option from the content guide
(e.g., primetime options 138), initiate display of a first symbol on the display
screen, the first symbol representing the first content, the first symbol
indicating that the first content is amongst the popular content (e.g., XYZ
channel icon) and initiate display of a second symbol on the display screen,
the second symbol representing the second content, the second symbol
indicating that the second content is amongst the popular content (e.g., ECB
channel icon), as claimed.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

15
E. Claim 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Nagahama indicates to display titles of
recommended content for a user without any channel information and that
Kirby indicates to display primetime channels. See Appeal Br. 28.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Nagahama teaches the selectable supplemental
channel viewing option indicating a respective title of the most popular
viewed content currently available for viewing over the particular selectable
channel (Figure 9 (Drama Series XXX, Movie AAA, Drama BBB, etc.)).
Final Act. 13.
The Examiner relies on Kirby for teaching initiating simultaneous
display of the identity of the particular selectable channel (e.g., XYZ, ECB,
etc.) and the supplemental channel viewing option (e.g., electronic program
guide bar 138) in the content guide (paras. 23, 31, and Fig. 4 (electronic
program guide bar 138 integrated into the EPG, presenting television
network channels that are currently presenting the most popular content at a
given time)). Final Act. 13.
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nagahama in view
of Kirby would improve the popular content channel of Nagahama by
including multiple content from different networks that are most popular
during the same time slot, and presenting more visual information about
these networks to the viewer. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

16
F. Claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that the virtual channel in Nagahama only teaches
the type of content and does not teach the identities of multiple selectable
channels. See Appeal Br. 30. Appellant again argues that Kirby only
illustrates prime time channels. See Appeal Br. 30.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Nagahama teaches that the popular content may include
multiple different genres. See Final Act. 17. The Examiner further finds,
and we agree, Kirby teaches populating the selectable supplemental channel
viewing option to include identities of multiple selectable channel. See Final
Act. 17 (citing Kirby para. 23 and Figs. 3–4 (e.g., EPG cell 138)).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the modification of the
virtual channel populated with content based on popularity and genre in
Nagahama with the identities of popular content as taught by Kirby to be a
predictable result of improving the virtual channel of Nagahama by
including multiple popular content form different networks and presenting
more visual information to the viewer. See Final Act. 17.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46.

G. Claim 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that the combination of displaying a recommended
channel in Nagahama and displaying a list of related channels in Kirby does
not teach or suggest populating the selectable supplemental channel viewing
option to include a ranking of identities of a list of selectable channels
identified by the content ranking information as broadcasting popular
content in a single genre. Appeal Br. 32.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

17
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, populating
virtual channels as suggested by Nagahama and Kirby with the most popular
content at a given time, reasonably reads on the argued “ranking of
identities.” Ans. 15.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47.

H. Claim 60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant repeats the argument that Nagahama provides no indication
of corresponding channel identity for any program recommended in channel
A and Kirby only teaches primetime channels. See Appeal Br. 34.
For the same reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 60.

I. Claim 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
The Appellant argues that row 138 in Kirby has nothing to do with
displaying most popular content and that Nagahama does not provide
channel identity information. See Appeal Br. 36.
As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Nagahama to teach
popular content and Kirby to teach channel identities. See supra analysis of
claim 1. The Examiner also relies on Kirby to teach channel symbols, e.g.,
XYZ. See Final Act. 25 (citing Kirby Figs. 4, 6–7).
We further agree with the Examiner that Kirby clearly defines the
primetime content that populates the primetime anytime cell option 132, as
content available on selected popular network television channels during a
particular period of the day. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

18
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 62.

J. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Donoghue indicates a single channel carries
content and that a respective virtual personal media channel, VPMC, is
obtained based on tuning to a broadcast channel. Appeal Br. 38. Appellant
argues that there is no indication that the cited prior art teaches or suggests
that a selectable supplemental channel viewing option represents an
independent channel with respect to the multiple selectable channels in the
content guide, the independent channel allocated to transmit a copy of the
currently popular content, the currently popular content being most
popularly consumed content amongst the multiple selectable channels. Id.
Appellant argues that there is no indication of transmitting the copy of the
most popularly consumed content over the independent channel in response
to detecting the most popularly consumed content. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Donoghue teaches the
conventionality of implementing a personal channel VPMC to provide the
same content over a separate channel. See Ans. 18 (citing Donoghue para.
187 and Fig. 4). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the modification of
Nagahama and Kirby with the independent channel as taught by Donoghue
has the predictable result of implementing a dedicated channel that would
ensure quality of service to the receiving user without having to implement a
complex switching mechanism at every user receiver. See Final Act. 27.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

19
K. Claims 23 and 63 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance of movies AAA and
Drama BBB as different available content associated with channel A of
Nagahama’s Figure 9 could not be played together as the movies are in
different time slots. See Appeal Br. 39. The Appellant further argues that
Wannamaker indicates to display selected content in response to receiving
selection of a mosaic tile by a user but does not teach or suggest a first and
second window region initiating a display playback rendition of first and
second content, respectively. See Appeal Br. 43.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that movie AAA and Drama BBB
are in the same time slot at least at 23:30 wherein both movie AAA and
Drama BBB are broadcasted and/or simultaneously presented on the popular
virtual channel F1. See Ans. 19 (citing Nagahama para. 55; see Fig. 9). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Wannamaker teaches displaying
popular channels, e.g., most watched today, as a plurality of video mosaic of
each popular channel, such as window mosaic 803D, 803C, etc. See Ans. 19
(citing Wannamaker paras. 8, 43, 44, 46, and Fig. 8).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that it would have been
obvious to modify the programs, e.g., movie AAA and Drama BBB, being
transmitted in parallel to be simultaneously presented to the viewer as
Picture-in-Picture mosaic windows as taught by Wannamaker for the
predictable result of displaying actual video content of the filtered popular
channels thus allowing the user to make a content selection in a faster and
more responsive manner. See Ans. 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 63.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

20
L. Claim 64 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Wannamaker only plays back a respective
mosaic tile in response to receiving a user selection. See Appeal Br. 44.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because Appellant
only argues against one reference without considering the combination of
prior art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We note that the Examiner relies on
Kirby to teach first content, e.g., XYZ, being received over a first channel
and a second content, e.g., ECB, being received over a second channel. See
Ans. 12. For reasons similar to claims 23 and 63, we find that the
combination of Nagahama in view of Kirby with Wannamaker is a
predictable result of displaying actual video content of the filtered popular
channels thus allowing the user to make a content selection in a faster and
more responsive manner. See Ans. 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 64.

M. Claims 39 and 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that the advertisement row in Gerba is not a channel
in a content guide and cannot be suggestive of statically displaying the
selectable supplemental channel viewing option in the content guide at a
fixed location on the display screen as a less-than-all portion of the multiple
selectable channels displayed on the display screen changes. See Appeal Br.
46.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds that,
while Gerba’s teaching of a static row 312 is directed to an advertisement,
one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the content being presented
within the static program cell may be expanded beyond advertisements. See
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

21
Ans. 21. Gerba also teaches that the electronic program guide may contain
program choices available for viewing at scheduled times or at a time close
to scheduled times. See Ans. 21 (citing Gerba paras. 67, 70, and Figs. 9–10).
Appellant does not provide any evidence sufficient to demonstrate
that combining the teachings in the manner proffered by the Examiner 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). Rather, combining the static display technology of Gerba with
Nagahama’s virtual channel in view of Kirby is simply a combination of
familiar prior art practices or acts that would have realized a predictable
result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 39 and 56.

N. Claims 53 and 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that Novak does not teach leaving a time slot blank
because Figure 8 of Novak shows the time slot of 9:30 populated with
content “Christmas ’99.” Appeal Br. 48.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Novak clearly states that if the
content does not fill up a time slot then one of the options is to leave the
remainder of the time slot blank. See Ans. 22 (citing Novak para. 65).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 53 and 54.

O. Claim 48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Appellant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest displaying
a second currently most popular ranked content. Appeal Br. 33.
Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

22
We agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner does not address
Appellant’s argument in the Answer. The Examiner’s finding in the Final
Office Action is deficient because displaying multiple popular channels, e.g.,
XYZ and ECB, as taught by Kirby does not teach “a second channel of
multiple selectable channels supplies second most popular ranked” as
required by claim 48. See Final Act. 19–20.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 48.

P. Claims 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 35–38, 41–45, 49–52, 57–59, 61,
and 65 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10, 12, 18, 20, 21,
24, 27, 35–38, 41–45, 49–52, 57–59, 61, and 65 not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED IN PART.
More specifically, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9,
10, 12, 18, 20–24, 27, 35–47, and 49–65 is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s
decision to reject claim 48 is REVERSED.

Appeal 2020-001841
Application 14/058,934

23
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 9, 18,
21, 22, 35–
38, 40–52,
55, 59–62
103 Nagahama, Kirby 1, 4, 9, 18,
21, 22, 35–
38, 40–47,
49–52, 55,
59–62
48
3, 20, 57, 58 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Donoghue
3, 20, 57, 58
10, 27 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Klein
10, 27
12 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Gossweiler
12
23, 24, 63,
64
103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Wannamaker
23, 24, 63,
64

39, 56 103

Nagahama, Kirby,
Gerba
39, 56
53, 54 103 Nagahama, Kirby,
Novak
53, 54
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 9,
10, 12, 18,
20–24, 27,
35–47, 49–
64
48

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART