Ex Parte Blanco

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2009

09802504 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte VICTOR KEITH BLANCO
__________

Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided:1 February 9, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims related to
restricting access to content in a game system. The Examiner has rejected

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

the claims as anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses that “available gaming systems cannot
restrict the content displayed once a disc has been installed in the gaming
system” (Spec. 1-2) and “do not provide any parental control mechanism to
restrict the types of online data retrieved and displayed” (id. at 2). The
Specification discloses a method and apparatus that “provides the ability to
restrict access to various types of content in a gaming system” (id.).
“Separate parental control settings can be established for each type of
content supported by the gaming system. . . . For example, the gaming
system can be configured to play any music CD, but restrict game content to
games that are appropriate for teenagers.” (Id. at 3.)
Claims 1-18 and 21-57 are pending and on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
Claim 1: A game console, comprising:
a memory to store a plurality of parental control settings, wherein the
plurality of parental control settings are associated with different media
types;
a media reader to read content from the different media types; and
a processor coupled to the memory and the media reader, wherein the
processor allows performance of the content read by the media reader if the
parental control setting corresponding to the media type of the content being
read is satisfied.

2
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

The claims stand rejected as follows:
• claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 21-26, 28-31, 35-44, 47-50, and 52-57
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lee2;
• claims 2-4, 8, 11, 17, 18, 27, 32-34, 45, 46, and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee.
ANTICIPATION
The Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 21-26, 28-31,
35-44, 47-50, and 52-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lee.
The Examiner’s position is that
Lee discloses a computer (game) system having a
function of interrupting lewd/violent programs which includes
… a non-volatile memory device for storing a security grade
which is a program classification code … ; and a controller for
controlling execution of an application program according to
the security grade of the application program and the security
grade stored in the non-volatile memory device.

(Answer 3.) The Examiner finds that “Lee further encompasses other media
types such as television programs, etc.” (id. at 4).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Lee
discloses “‘a memory to store a plurality of parental control settings …
associated with different media types’” because “an application program and
a television program are not different media types as recited in claim 1” but
are “different content, not different media types” (Appeal Br. 10).

2 Lee, US 5,978,920, Nov. 2, 1999.
3
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence support
the Examiner’s finding that Lee discloses the claim limitation of “a memory
to store a plurality of parental control settings … associated with different
media types”?
Findings of Fact
1. Lee discloses a “computer system having a function for
intercepting lewd/violent programs which includes a central processing unit
(CPU) for controlling execution of an application program … according to
the security grade of the application program and the security grade stored in
security grade memory,” and “a security grade memory for storing security
grade infonmation [sic] to pennit [sic] execution of the application program”
(Lee, col. 2, ll. 39-57).
2. Lee discloses that “the CPU 11 initializes an application program
when the application program is first inserted into the computer system by
way of CD-ROM drive 37 or other available means” (id. at col. 6, ll. 31-34).
3. Lee discloses that “if the computer system is further constructed to
serve as a television receiver, then the application program can also
encompass television programs that carry different program classification
codes for different levels of graphic sex, violence and strong language” (id.
at col. 7, ll. 27-31).
4. Lee discloses a
security grade examination process … [that] includes the steps
of comparing the security grade contained in an application
program with the security grade set to the computer system,
determining whether the security grade set to the computer
system enables execution … , executing the application
program when the security grade set to the computer enables
4
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

execution of the present application program, and outputting
[an] error message when the security grade set to the computer
system does not enable execution.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 64 – col. 3, l. 7.)
5. The Specification discloses that “[a]ccess can be restricted to game
content, audio content, video content, and online content. Separate control
settings can be established for each different type of content.” (Specification
4: 16-18.)
6. The Specification discloses that “the filter levels may change
depending upon the media type under review. Fig. 9 shows the parental
control options for games. A different set of options may be presented for
movies or music.” (Specification 15: 24 – 16: 1.)
7. The Specification discloses that “different media types that may be
played by the game console include a game media type, a music media type,
and a movie media type” (Specification, pg. 26 (original claim 30)).
8. The Specification discloses that the “identified content to be played
by the game console is selected from a group of media types comprising
game data, audio data, and video data” (Specification, pg. 27 (original claim
36)).

Principles of Law
[A]s an initial matter, the 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
5
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Analysis
Claim 1 is drawn to a game console that comprises (i) a memory to
store parental control settings associated with different media types, (ii) a
media reader to read content from the different media types, and (iii) a
processor coupled to the memory and the media reader that allows
performance of the content read by the media reader if the parental control
setting corresponding to the media type of the content being read is satisfied.
Appellant does not dispute that Lee discloses a game console that entails a
memory to store parental control settings, a media reader to read content,
and a processor that couples the memory to the media reader.
Claim 1 also requires that the memory “store a plurality of parental
control settings … associated with different media types” and that the media
reader “read content from the different media types.” Appellant argues that,
“[i]n Lee, ‘application program’ and ‘television program’ refer to different
content, not different media types” and that therefore, Lee does not disclose
a memory to store a plurality of parental control settings associated with
different media types (Appeal Br. 10).
The Examiner finds that “Lee further encompasses other media types
such as television programs” (Answer 4) and reasons that “a game program
can be introduced to the computer game system via a game CD, whereas, the
television program can be from a cable connection to the computer game
system. Hence, Lee discloses different media types” (id. at 9). Thus,
6
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

resolution of the disputed issue requires interpretation of the term “different
media types” recited in claim 1.
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
according to their ordinary meaning and are further interpreted in view of
the Specification. The Specification does not define the term “media types,”
but states that different media types include games, music, and movies. The
Specification also states that the disclosed system can apply different
parental control settings, or filter levels, for different types of content (e.g.,
music, games, and movies). Thus, one of skill in the art would interpret
“media types,” in accordance with its use in the Specification, to mean
different types of content; e.g., games and music are different media types,
even if they are both encoded on CDs.
Lee discloses a computer that can restrict access to computer games
and television programming according to established security codes. Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “media types” consistent with its
use in the instant Specification, one of skill in the art would interpret
computer games and television programming to be different media types.
Thus, Lee discloses the disputed claim limitation of “a memory to store a
plurality of parental control settings … associated with different media
types.” (Appeal Br. 10.)
Appellant argues several other claim groups separately from claim 1
(Appeal Br. 11-19). However, Appellant’s arguments, for each group, are
based on the same issue discussed above for claim 1, and are not persuasive
for the same reason.
7
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

OBVIOUSNESS
The Examiner has rejected claims 2-4, 8, 11, 17, 18, 27, 32-34, 45, 46,
and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Lee. The Examiner
concludes that, although Lee does not identically disclose the products
defined by these claims, the differences between what is claimed and what is
disclosed by Lee would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art (Answer 7-8).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion.
Appellant’s arguments, for each of the groups argued separately, are
based on the same issue discussed above for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 19-22) and
for the reasons discussed above, do not persuade us that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Lee discloses
the claim limitation of “a memory to store a plurality of parental control
settings … associated with different media types.”
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 21-26, 28-31,
35-44, 47-50, and 52-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lee and the rejection of claims 2-4, 8, 11, 17, 18, 27, 32-34, 45, 46, and 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Lee.
8
Appeal 2008-5235
Application 09/802,504

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).

AFFIRMED

cdc

MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND WA 98052
9