Ex Parte Moreau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

14013290 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2017)

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.
14/013,290 08/29/2013 Samuel Moreau 007412.02523 7038
71867 7590 03/06/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ALFONSO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
PTO-71867 @bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL MOREAU, DARRELL HABER,
KATHRYN JARONESKI, CHRISTINE HIRSCH, and GEORGIA GIBBS
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,29c1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 3—22, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. Claims 1 and 2 have been canceled.
App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as TVWorks, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,290
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a computer-implemented method for generating
and displaying a user interface containing one or more tiles corresponding to
contents selected for presentation based on a viewer demographics and time
of day. Spec. Tflf 28, 40-43, Fig. 3.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 3 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
3. A method, comprising:
generating, by a computing device, a user interface comprising one or
more tiles, wherein at least one tile of the one or more tiles corresponds to
content that is selected for presentation based on a viewer demographic
selected from a plurality of viewer demographics, the viewer demographic
being selected based at least in part on a time of day; and
causing, by the computing device, the generated user interface to be
displayed.
Rejection on Appeal
Claim 3—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breen (US 2003/0204846 Al; Oct. 30,
2003) and Kitsukama (US 2006/0248572 Al; Nov. 2, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4—13, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 31, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
2
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,290
otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—21, Fin. Act. 2—11. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that the
combination of Breen and Kitsukama does not teach or suggest a tile
corresponding to content selected for presentation based on a viewer
demographic selected based at least in part on a time of day. App. Br. 8—9.
In particular, Appellants argue Breen discloses displaying a graphical
presentation based on demographics and/or time of day as independent and
unrelated factors, but not as dependent factors. Id. (citing Breen || 39, 65).
Likewise, Appellants argue Kitsukama’s disclosure of a gateway screen
having “different sets of content panels for different times of day” is
similarly deficient. App. Br. 9 (citing Kitsukama 148). Therefore,
Appellants submit that the combination of Breen and Kitsukama would, at
best, result in a user interface wherein contents are generated based on
viewer demographics. App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants contend that the
proposed combination would fall short of teaching or suggesting the viewer
demographics being selected based at least in part on time of day. Id. These
arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not rebutted beyond a
preponderance of the evidence the Examiner’s conclusion that the originally-
April 15, 2016), and the Answer (mailed February 16, 2016) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,290
filed Specification does not support the disputed claim language.3 Ans. 4
(citing Spec. 40, 41). Although Appellants emphasize that the claim
language requires “the viewer demographic being selected based at least in
part on a time of day,” Appellants have not shown, in response the
Examiner’s challenge, where in the Specification support is provided for the
disputed claim recitation. Reply Br. 2—3. We thus consider the scope and
meaning of the disputed claim limitation, which must be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, as
explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc).
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants’ Specification states
in relevant part the following:
In this manner, the concept of this invention includes among
other things the notion of dynamically shifting the user interface and
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider rejecting
the claims under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement.
4
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,290
navigation using time-based demographics. Thus, this invention
includes the notion of surfacing different content to different viewers
at different times in a novel way.
Spec. ]f41 (emphasis added).
Some elements of the present user interface include:
e. user interface methods for time-shifted user interfaces, present
different content selections to viewers based on:
i. time of day.
o. tiled user interfaces wherein business rules can be based
on:
i. time of day . . .
v. viewer demographic
Spec. 1142.
The emphasized portion of Appellants’ Specification above indicates
that the invention relates to dynamically shifting a user interface through
“time-based demographics.” Spec. 141. It further clarifies that the
invention involves surfacing different content to different viewers at
different times. Id. Although the phrase “time-based demographics”
appears to indicate demographics based on time, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that phrase, consistent with the Specification, is an interface
generated and displayed to different viewers at different times.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s construction of the disputed
claim limitation as a system that utilizes time of day and demographics as
criteria for generating a user interface for different viewers at different
times. Ans. 4—5 (citing Spec. H 40, 41).
5
Appeal 2016-005101
Application 14/013,290
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Breen teaches
generating a user interface based on demographics and time. App. Br. 9
(citing Breen | 65), Ans. 6—7. Likewise, Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that Kitsukama teaches generating “different sets of
content panels for different times of day.” App. Br. 9 (citing Kitsukama
148), Ans. 10. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Breen and Kitsukama teaches or suggests a computer-implemented
method for generating and displaying a user interface for different viewers at
different times of day (i.e., based on demographics and time of day), and
thereby teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claims 4—22, because Appellants reiterate substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 3
above, claims 4—22 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
3-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6