Ex Parte Kidd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2014

11782784 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2014)

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.
11/782,784 07/25/2007 Deanna R. Kidd PD-207007 8188
20991 7590 05/09/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2014 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 DEANNA R. KIDD, SHANDLE GREEN,
and RAYNOLD M. KAHN
____________

Appeal 2011-005832
Application 11/782,784
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-65. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-005832
Application 11/782,784

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to enabling a service through a user
device (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method of accessing a service from a user
device comprising:
coupling the user device to a network;
selecting the service;
communicating a welcome video from a service provider
through the network to the user device in response to selecting
the service;
communicating a confirmation signal from the user
device to the service provider in response to successfully
receiving the welcome video; and
enabling access to the service in response to the
confirmation signal.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 15, 18, 22, 25-29, 31, 34, 37, 40-44, 48-52, 60, 63,
and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dunn
(US 5,861,906; Jan. 19, 1999) (see Ans. 4-10).
Claims 5-7, 13, 16, 17, 19-21, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 45-47, 53-59, and 65
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn
and Atad (US 2005/0055724 A1; Mar. 10, 2005) (see Ans. 10-15).
Claims 14, 23, 38, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn and Ferguson (US 2007/0250863 A1; Oct. 25,
2007) (see Ans. 15-16).
Appeal 2011-005832
Application 11/782,784

3
Claims 24, 39, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn and Ganesan (US 2009/0019468 A1; Jan. 15,
2009) (see Ans. 16-17).
Issue on Appeal
The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in finding that Dunn
teaches or suggests all the limitations of Appellants’ independent claims?

ANALYSIS
We reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. We refer herein to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief filed September 20, 2010 (App. Br.), Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 8, 2010 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 8,
2011 (Reply Br.).
At the outset, we note that Appellants’ arguments are premised on
Appellants’ position that the video-on-demand (VOD) application in Dunn
(see Dunn col. 12, ll. 55-57) corresponds to the service recited in Appellants’
claims (App. Br. 12). However, the Examiner explains that the video
programs in Dunn (see Dunn col. 13, ll. 20-21) also meet the claimed service
(Ans. 19). We agree with the Examiner, as Appellants do not provide any
persuasive evidence or reasoning to rebut the Examiner’s reasonable
interpretation of the claim language.
Turning to Appellants’ specific contentions, with respect to claim 1,
Appellants argue that Dunn does not teach communicating a welcome video
in response to selecting the service (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2). However,
when the claimed service is interpreted to encompass video programs, we
agree with the Examiner that Dunn teaches this feature (Ans. 4, 20).
Appeal 2011-005832
Application 11/782,784

4
Specifically, Dunn teaches that a user selects a set of video programs, and
then preview videos for the requested set of programs are displayed on the
TV set (Dunn col. 13, ll. 2-5, 20-26). Appellants’ Specification indicates
that a welcome video represents an initial or beginning video (Spec. ¶
[0051]). Because the preview videos in Dunn are initial videos for the
selected programs, we agree with the Examiner that Dunn teaches the
claimed welcome video. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that Dunn does not teach communicating a
confirmation signal in response to successfully receiving the welcome video
(Reply Br. 3). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. As explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 4), Dunn teaches that a user watches the previews and then
orders one of the programs (Dunn col. 13, ll. 26-32). After the user orders a
program, the set-top box sends a program moniker to the headend (Dunn col.
13, ll. 29-32). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions
of Dunn teach that a confirmation signal for a video program is
communicated in response to receiving the welcome video.
Appellants also argue that Dunn does not teach enabling access to the
service in response to the confirmation signal (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-
3). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 5, 19-20), Dunn teaches that, after a user’s order is sent to the
headend, the ordered video program is sent back to the user’s set-top box
and displayed on the TV set (Dunn col. 13, ll. 32-37). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the cited portions of Dunn teach enabling access to a
video program in response to the confirmation signal.
With respect to claims 13, 14, 22, 24, and 26, Appellants argue that
the additional references cited by the Examiner for those claims do not
Appeal 2011-005832
Application 11/782,784

5
compensate for the alleged deficiencies that Appellants identified with
respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 15-19). Because Appellants’ arguments
regarding claim 1 are not persuasive, Appellants’ arguments regarding
claims 13, 14, 22, 24, and 26 are also not persuasive. With respect to the
remaining claims, Appellants present no separate arguments and contend
their patentability based on the same reasons stated for claim 1 (App. Br. 14-
19). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-65.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-65 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
ke