Ex Parte SegelDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201613116098 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/ll6,098 05/26/2011 76614 7590 Terry W, Kramer, Esq, Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 07/27/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jonathan Dean Segel 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. ALC 3138-DIV-CON 4780 EXAMINER DUONG, HIEN LUONGV AN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 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): mail@krameramado.com ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN DEAN SEGEL Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 Technology Center 2100 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application "is directed to the field of broadband entertainment and in particular to a system and a method for enabling the convenient delivery of personalized video entertainment." Spec 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of providing personalized video entertainment on a plurality of video terminals connected to a video server storing a plurality of video content items, the method comprising: generating a viewer preference (VP) profile for a video terminal based on statistical observation of viewing habits; constructing a content sequence from eligible video content items identified using said VP profile; preparing a collection of selection criteria for identifying the eligible video content items associated with the video terminal; storing the selection criteria in the VP profile; and controlling transfer of said eligible content items in said content sequence to said video terminal. REJECTIONS Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2002/0133830 Al; Sept. 19, 2002) ("Kim"). Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim and Scott, III et al. (US 8,650,596 B2; Feb. 11, 2014) ("Scott"). ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 14 Appellant argues the Examiner erroneously found Kim discloses "preparing a collection of selection criteria for identifying the eligible video 2 Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 content items ... storing the selection criteria in the VP profile" as recited in independent claims 1 and 14. See App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant asserts the Examiner found Kim's "T 10 list" (a list of ten popular video and game titles) and statement that "[t]he video mix preferably comprises new movie releases, short video series, and video games" discloses the recited "selection criteria." See App. Br. 5; Kim i-f 46. Appellant argues "the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable because the video mix is a list of selected items. No selection criteria are present because the items have already been selected." Id. (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 2. Put differently, Appellant contends the disclosed "new movie releases, short video series, and video games" are "selected content, not selection criteria." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Appellant argues that "[w]hile the word 'criteria' may appear in paragraph [0046], Kim does not store any selection criteria in a VP profile" as recited in claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, "Kim automatically initiates a video file transfer without the video having actually been ordered" and therefore "has no reason to store selection criteria in the VP profile as claimed." App. Br. 6 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 2. We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner did not find titles or content disclose the recited "selection criteria" as argued by Appellant. Rather, the Examiner found Kim discloses the recited "selection criteria" because Kim teaches "any criteria could be used to determine which videos and games would be included" in the T 10 list. Ans. 3 (quoting Kim i-f 46); see also Kim i-f 58 (explaining "[t]his list ... is referred to as the Tl 0 list. ... any criteria could be used to determine which videos and games would be included in this list"). Although Appellant contends Kim does not 3 Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 "stor[e] the selection criteria in the VP [viewer preference] profile" as recited in claim 1, Kim discloses otherwise. Specifically Kim discloses generating the T 10 list using subscriber profile information that includes preferred video categories. See Kim i-fi-188-96, Fig. 5. Kim discloses that subscriber profiles "could be stored on the STB 140 . .. or the COS 126 could maintain a database of subscriber profiles." Kim i-f 103. Accordingly, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 14. Claim 3 Dependent claim 3 recites "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein said step of generating further comprises: collecting viewer preference information relevant to said video terminal." App. Br. 14. Appellant asserts that the Examiner relied on Kim's T 10 list for this limitation and argues "the T 10 list is selected content. It lacks any viewer preference information." Id. at 7. We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive. The Examiner did not find Kim's TIO list discloses this limitation. Instead, the Examiner found Kim's method of creating a profile discloses this limitation. See Ans. 4. Kim provides adequate support for this finding. For example, Kim discloses capturing rental statistics to determine a usage profile and generating a subscriber profile that includes, among other things, a subscriber's viewing habits. See Kim i-fi-146, 103. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. 4 Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 Claims 4 and 5 Claim 4 recites "[t]he method of claim 3, wherein said collection of selection criteria includes reliability factors that take into account the quality of said viewer feedback messages." App. Br. 14. Because claim 4 indirectly depends from claim 1, claim 4 includes claim 1 's "storing the selection criteria in the VP profile" limitation. See id. at 13-14; 35 U.S.C. § 112 i-f 4. Appellant asserts that the Examiner found Kim's tags disclose the recited "reliability factors" and argues these tags are not stored in the VP profile as required by claim 4. See id. at 8; Reply Br. 3. We find Appellant's argument persuasive. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner found Kim discloses assigning tags to videos and interpreted these tags as the "reliability factors" recited in claim 4. See Final Act. 6 (citing Kim i-f 67); Ans. 5 (citing Kim i-fi-1 46, 65, 67). The cited portions of Kim do not establish that Kim's tags are stored in a "VP profile," and the Examiner has not addressed Appellant's argument that Kim does not disclose this aspect of claim 1. See Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5. Claim 5 recites "[t]he method of claim 3, wherein said collection of selection criteria include external content item data appraisals and popularity metrics." App. Br. 14. Like claim 4, claim 5 indirectly depends from claim 1 and therefore includes claim 1 's "storing the selection criteria in the VP profile" limitation. See id. at 13-14; 35 U.S.C. § 112 i-f 4. The Examiner found Kim discloses the recited "external content item data appraisals" because Kim teaches "records collected from each COS (Central Office Storage)." Ans. 6 (discussing Kim i-fi-146, 70); Final Act. 6. But the 5 Appeal2015-002028 Application 13/116,098 Examiner has not established Kim discloses storing these records in "the VP profile." See Ans. 6; Final Act. 6. Remaining Claims Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for claims 2 and 6-13, and 15-18. See App. Br. 10-11. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-18. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation