Ex Parte Mountain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

11818462 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111818,462 06/14/2007
24118 7590 07/29/2016
HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN, P.C.
228 W 17TH PLACE
TULSA, OK 74119
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dale Mountain
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BAI525- l 66/07224 2002
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
thamm@hjklaw.com
khinkle@hjklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALE MOUNTAIN
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-18 and 20-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the assignee is Pace Plc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention "relates to broadcast data receivers (BDRs) and
more specifically to a plurality of BDRs which are connected together
typically ... via a local network." Spec. 1, 11. 10-12. According to
Appellant, the invention "aims to provide an improved arrangement in which
the user of one BDR can take account of what is being watched on another
BDR" (id. at 3, 11. 1-2), such as "a BDR in a child's room [that] could allow
the child access to potentially unsuitable broadcast material" (id. at 2,
11. 10-12). As one solution, "a log of the data relating to the program output
... can be stored" and "[t]he user ... can easily assess the usage data ... if,
for example, a parent is out and wishes to check on usage of the BDRs in
their absence." Id. at 6, 11. 5-9.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis and
paragraphing, is representative of all claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013) (representative claims).
1. A system for monitoring the operation of one or more
broadcast data receivers located within the same premises, the
system comprising:
a first broadcast data receiver connected to one or more further
broadcast data receivers via a communication network with each
of the broadcast data receivers located within the same premises,
each of the broadcast data receivers arranged to process
transmitted video, audio and/or auxiliary data received from at
least one broadcaster so as to provide a corresponding program
output, via a display screen and speakers connected thereto[,]
wherein the first broadcast data receiver is arranged to receive at
least a portion of data which is, or is representative of data,
processed by the one or more further broadcast data receivers and
uses the portion of data to provide an indication to a user of the
2
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
first broadcast data receiver of the program being output from the
one or more further broadcast data receivers[,]
wherein there is provided a memory in the first broadcast data
receiver in which a log of the data relating to the program output
of the said first broadcast data receiver and the data received
relating to the program output of the other broadcast data
receivers is stored to build up the log of the programs which have
been watched over time and information from said log is
available to be subsequently displayed to a user[,]
wherein the said receivers are connected within the premises via
a local connection network and the log is generated from data
received from the broadcast data receivers connected to said
local connection network.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 and 20-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ellis '281(US2007/0157281 Al; July 5, 2007), Ngo
(US 7,134,132 Bl; Nov. 7, 2006), Ellis '965 (US 2006/0136965 Al;
June 22, 2006), and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues that the cited references "do not disclose broadcast
data receivers within the same premises wherein a log is generated from the
3
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
broadcast receivers of data located within the same single premises." App.
Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument because it attacks the
references individually and fails to address the Examiner's findings as a
whole. The Examiner finds Ellis '281 teaches broadcast data receivers
located within the same premises, consisting of primary and secondary user
equipment located connected via a home network. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 15-
16. The Examiner further relies on Ngo and Ellis '965 as teaching data
receivers that store a user's viewing history and make this information
available for display to the user. Final Act. 3--4. We agree with the
Examiner that combing the teaching of recording a user's viewing history, as
described in Ngo and Ellis '965, with the teaching of data receivers located
within the same premises, as described in Ellis '281, teaches or suggests
"receivers ... connected within the premises via a local connection network
and the log is generated from data received from the broadcast data receivers
connected to said local connection network," as required by claim 1.
Appellant further argues "none of the prior art documents disclose or
teach the display of the information from the log to the user." App. Br. 10.
In particular, Appellant argues that the cited references utilize a user's
viewing history to generate further program recommendations and/or
focused advertising and that such recommendations or advertising would not
be used "such that a parent may observe or monitor usage of the receivers in
the network" and "would not make the [parent] aware that [unsuitable]
content was being viewed." App. Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant's argument
is incommensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require that the
4
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
information from the log of watched programs be used to monitor usage for
unsuitable content. Nor does claim 1 require that the information from the
log be displayed, but merely recites that the information from the log is
available to be subsequently displayed. Further, Appellant's argument that
the cited references do not teach or suggest the display of information from
the log to the user is also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Ngo and Ellis
'965 teach recording a user's viewing history and using this information to
provide targeted advertising. Ans. 15 (citing Ngo Fig. 10; Ellis '965 iJ 107).
Ellis '965 also teaches that the viewing histories are stored by the program
guide server and used to identify the programs users have watched. Ellis
'965 iii! 7, 109. Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the
claim, we agree that Ngo' s targeted advertising, and the identification of
watched programs by Ellis '965's program guide server, teaches or suggests
that information from a log of watched programs is, in fact, available to be
subsequently displayed to the user.
Appellant also argues the Examiner's obviousness rationale is
conclusory. App. Br. 12. The argument is unpersuasive. As reflected by
our above discussion of the Examiner's findings, the Examiner supports the
combination's storing of viewer histories (in view of Ngo and Ellis '965) for
locally networked set-top boxes (in view of Ellis '281 and AAPA) and
providing of information therefrom. Ans. 15-16; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions"). Moreover, Appellant
does not present persuasive argument or evidence that the resulting
arrangements were "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See
5
Appeal2015-002787
Application 11/818,462
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 19). Therefore, Appellant has not
shown the above combination is unobvious. Nor has Appellant shown claim
l's invention distinguishes over the above combination.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-28.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 and 20-28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6