Appeal 2007-1492
Application 10/061,813
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejections of claims 4, 9, 14 through 16, 18, 21, and 24.
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 14-16 and Reply Br. 3-4) that Rodriguez fails
to teach sorting program data according to a stopped name version of the
program titles, as recited in each of the independent claims. Appellants
present no further arguments for claims 14 through 16. For claims 4, 9, 18,
21, and 24, Appellants contend that Byrne fails to cure the alleged
deficiency of Rodriguez. The Examiner asserts (Answer 9-11) that sorting
program data by a stopped name version of the program titles would have
been obvious, as Rodriguez discloses sorting by titles and suggests using
abbreviated versions of the titles for space considerations. Thus, the only
issue is whether sorting by stopped name versions of the program titles
would have been obvious in view of Rodriguez for claims 14 through 16 and
in view of Rodriguez and Byrne for the remaining claims.
Rodriguez discloses (paragraph 0073) that electronic program guide
(EPG) data is sorted according to attributes such as program title. Further,
multiple versions of each program title are stored. Abbreviated versions of
the program information to be displayed are preferred for EPG views where
space may not be available. Although Rodriguez does not specify the type
of abbreviations to be used, Rodriguez clearly suggests sorting by program
titles and shortening the program titles to save space. The Supreme Court
recently held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a
court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider "the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013