Ex Parte Agnihotri et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310084712 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/084,712 02/25/2002 Lalitha Agnihotri US020056 5878 7590 02/28/2013 HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN 228 West 17th Place Tulsa, OK 74119 EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LALITHA AGNIHOTRI and ANGEL JANEVSKI ____________________ Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,7121 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 20, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. 2 Claims 7, 10, 12, 18, and 19 have been cancelled. Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,712 2 Appellants’ invention is a method and system for retrieving information about television programs. The information is either displayed along with the program or stored for later playback (Spec. 2). The retrieved information can include a particular character’s role in the program, a description of a particular program in the series, a history of the series or a summary of other episodes (Spec. 7). Appellants’ extraction method can extract only events that are relevant to the summary, and identify similar events in other episodes (Spec. 10). Claims 1 and 9 are exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method for retrieving information about television programs, said method comprising the steps of: connecting to a website including information about an episode of a television program being watched; downloading the information from the website; processing the information including combining summaries of other episodes; and displaying the information along with the television program being watched. 9. A method for retrieving information about television programs, said method comprising the steps of: connecting to a website including information about an episode of a television program being watched; downloading the information from the website; processing the information; and displaying the information along with the television program being watched, wherein downloading the information from the website includes: identifying information about events in other episodes similar to an event in the television program being watched; extracting the information about events in other episodes from the website; and transmitting the information about events in other episodes over a network. Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,712 3 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Shoff US 6,240,555 B1 May 29, 2001 Ahmad US 6,263,507 B1 Jul. 17, 2001 Ward US 6,756,997 B1 Jun. 29, 2004 Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13-16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Ahmad. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Ahmad and Shoff. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Shoff. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 16, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 5, 2010) for their respective details. ISSUES3 With respect to independent claims 1 and 20, Appellants argue that Ahmad does not teach “combining summaries of other episodes” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that the supplemental information presented by Ahmad does not constitute summaries of either segments or the entirety of the news broadcasts disclosed (id.). Appellants further assert that a news broadcast is outside the scope of an “episode” of a television program (App. Br. 10-11). 3 Appellants also request that the Board reverse the finality of the Office Action (App. Br. 11). We do not treat the merits of this request, as the propriety of the Final Office Action is a matter to be decided by petition to an Examining Group Director, rather than by the Board. Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,712 4 With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue, inter alia, that Ward in combination with Shoff does not teach or suggest identifying information about events in other episodes similar to an event in the television program being watched (App. Br. 12-13). Appellants assert that the “‘target specifications’” disclosed in Shoff do not correspond to the “events” recited in the claim. Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues: 1. Does Ahmad teach combining summaries of other episodes? 2. Does Shoff teach identifying information about events in other episodes similar to an event in the television program being watched? PRINCIPLES OF LAW Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,712 5 ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 20, AND 21 Independent claims 1 and 20 recite “combining summaries of other episodes.” Independent claim 21 recites “combining video clips of events in other episodes.” We agree with Appellants that Ahmad does not teach “combining summaries of other episodes.” Secondary information region 214 (Ahmad Fig. 2B), cited by the Examiner as showing such summaries of other episodes (Ans. 3, 12), in fact “includes three sets of text that each are a story from a text news source” (col. 18, ll. 66-67). These stories from text news sources appear to be concerned with the same topic as primary information region 213, which includes “three single video images that each represent a news story from a news program” (col. 17, ll. 1-3). Even if one assumes that television news programs constitute “episodes” within the meaning of the claims, Ahmad’s secondary information region 214 teaches stories from text news sources, i.e., independent accounts of the same news presented on television. We find that these independent accounts cannot be said to constitute a “summary” of the “episode” presented on television. With respect to independent claim 21, we further find that neither Ward nor Ahmad teach combining video clips of events in other episodes. We find that the combination of Ward and Ahmad does not teach all the limitations of claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13-16, 20, and 21. We further find that the combination of Ward, Ahmad, and Shoff fails to teach all the limitations of claims 6 and 17. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Appeal 2010-009031 Application 10/084,712 6 CLAIM 9 We agree with Appellants that Shoff does not teach any “‘target specifications’” that correspond to the “events” recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 12-13). We acknowledge that Shoff teaches “description text” as one of the disclosed target specifications (col. 6, l. 2), and supplemental content including “facts on other episodes” (col. 11, ll. 30-31). The Examiner’s Answer fails to point out, and our review of Shoff has not identified, any disclosure in Shoff remotely corresponding to “identifying . . . events in other episodes,” as required by claim 9. (Emphasis added.). We therefore find that Ward in combination with Shoff fails to teach all the limitations of claim 9. We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. CONCLUSIONS 1. Ahmad does not teach combining summaries of other episodes. 2. Shoff does not teach identifying information about events in other episodes similar to an event in the television program being watched. ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 20, and 21 is reversed. REVERSED gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation