Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2021

2019005942 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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.
14/675,558 03/31/2015 George M. Higa 20140874 9602
170053 7590 03/08/2021
VERIZON - ALG
VERIZON PATENTING GROUP
1300 I STREET NW
SUITE 500 EAST
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2021 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):
170053@alg-ip.com
VZPatent170053@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE M. HIGA and BRIAN F. ROBERTS
____________

Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4–15, and 18–24, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. §
1.42. Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “media channel navigation
technologies.” Spec. ¶ 4.
An exemplary method includes a media channel navigation user
interface system detecting, while media content distributed on a
media channel is being presented for display on a display
screen, a user request to launch a media channel navigation user
interface, and providing, in response to the detected user
request and for concurrent display with the presentation of the
media content on the display screen, a media channel
navigation user interface pane comprising a set of media
channel navigation tools that include at least media content
channel navigation tools selectable by a user to launch different
types of menus of media channels in the media channel
navigation user interface pane.

Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary:

1. A method comprising:
detecting, by a media channel navigation user interface
system while media content distributed on a media channel is
being presented for display on a display screen, a user request
to launch a media channel navigation user interface;
selecting, by the media channel navigation user interface
system based on a set of predefined similarity-based channel
selection factors, a plurality of other media channels each
characterized by sharing an attribute of the media channel;
selecting, by the media channel navigation user interface
system, a media program characterized by sharing an attribute
of the media content that is distributed on the media channel;
and
providing, by the media channel navigation user interface
system in response to the detected user request and for
concurrent display with the presentation of the media content
on the display screen, a media channel navigation user interface
Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

3
pane comprising a set of media channel navigation tools that
include
a first media channel navigation tool selectable by
a user to launch a similarity-based menu of media options
in the media channel navigation user interface pane, the
media options in the similarity-based menu of media
options including a similarity-based combination set of
media channels and media programs currently being
distributed, the similarity-based combination set of media
channels and media programs comprising the selected
plurality of other media channels and the selected media
program, and
a second media channel navigation tool selectable
by the user to launch a recency-based menu of media
options in the media channel navigation user interface
pane, the media options in the recency-based menu of
media options including a recency-based combination set
of media channels and media programs selected based on
recency of access prior to a launch of the recency-based
menu.

Appeal 21–22 (Claims App.).

References and Rejections2
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1, 6–10,
12–15, 20,
22–24
103 Moraveji (US 7,890,849 B2, issued
February 15, 2011), Dureau (US
2011/0289530 A1, published November 24,
2011), Ahn (US 2010/0306798 A1,
published Dec. 2, 2010)
4, 5, 11, 18,
19, 21
103 Moraveji, Dureau, Ahn, Schwesinger (US
8,745,664 B2, issued June 3, 2014)

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
January 25, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated May 28, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated June 26, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated August 6, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

4

ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Moraveji
teach “providing . . . a media channel navigation user interface pane
comprising a set of media channel navigation tools that include a first media
channel navigation tool selectable by a user to launch a similarity-based
menu of media options in the media channel navigation user interface pane,”
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 11–14;
Reply Br. 3–7.
The Examiner finds:
Examiner . . . believes that this limitation is taught by Moraveji.
In column 5, lines 40-56, the graphical user interface is explained
as shown in Fig. 3, in this display it includes a related content
sector (label 304) with the display screen with various panes,
which the user is able to navigate with, thereby teachings a
concurrent display. Moraveji, further goes on to teach in Column
7, II 46-Col. 8, line 67, a display and listing for related content
items, which would be “a similarity based menu of media
options”, the user controlled scrolling command would be
teaches the “media channel navigation tool that is selectable by
the user to launch similarity based menu of media options.
Moraveji teach that the user can choose to interact with the list,
by involving navigating the related content list (Col. 7, line 44),
the user being able to scroll and add is a “navigation tool” that
the user is able to use to go through the related content items.
Moraveji in this section of its specification, describes navigating
the related content lists by using a scrolling command, which
involves scrolling the currently displayed related content items

3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

5
and scrolling to another one of the related content items, using
the scrolling tool.
Ans. 11–12 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues:
Contrary to the Office’s position, Moreveji does not
teach or suggest, either in the portions cited by the Office or in
other portions, any such “set of media channel navigation tools”
that are “selectable by a user to launch” different types of
menus. The so-called “navigation tools” that the Office refers to
as providing scrolling and queuing functionality in Moraveji are
only employed once the “related content item listing” (which
the Office equates with the “similarity-based menu of media
options” of claim 1) has already been launched. See Moraveji,
7:46-8:67. Because the menu of media options (i.e., the related
content item listing) has already been launched when
Moraveji’s scrolling and queuing tools are used, and because no
different type of menu of media options is described as being
launchable in place of the related content item listing, it is clear
that, however the Office might characterize the scrolling and
queueing tools, they do not amount to “a set of media channel
navigation tools that include a first media channel navigation
tool selectable by a user to launch a . . . menu of media
options” such as the “similarity-based menu of media
options[.]”

Reply Br. 6–7; see also Appeal Br. 11–14.
We agree with Appellant that using a scrolling command to navigate
related content means the associated menu of media options, namely the
related content item listing, has already been launched and, therefore, such
relied-upon functionality does not teach or suggest a “first media channel
navigation tool selectable by a user to launch a similarity-based menu of
media options,” as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). See Reply Br. 6–
7; Moraveji 7:51–55 (“If . . . the incoming command is a scrolling
command, the procedure involves scrolling the currently displayed related
Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

6
content item listing out of view while scrolling another one of the related
content item listings into view.”). Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that
“the user controlled scrolling command would be teaches the ‘media channel
navigation tool that is selectable by the user to launch similarity based menu
of media options’” (Ans. 11) is incorrect. As a result, the Examiner has not
shown the cited Moraveji portions teach “providing . . . a first media channel
navigation tool selectable by a user to launch a similarity-based menu of
media options in the media channel navigation user interface pane,” as
required by claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 3–
7.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 10 and 15 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 4–9, 11–14, and 18–24. Although the Examiner cites an additional
reference for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–15, and 18–
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-005942
Application 14/675,558

7
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–10, 12–15,
20, 22–24
103 Moraveji,
Dureau, Ahn
1, 6–10, 12–15,
20, 22–24
4, 5, 11, 18, 19,
21
103 Moraveji,
Dureau, Ahn,
Schwesinger
4, 5, 11, 18, 19,
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–15, 18–24

REVERSED