Ex Parte WeidenfellerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201610237461 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/237,461 0910912002 27045 7590 ERICSSON INC. 6300 LEGACY DRIVE MIS EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 02/02/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas Weidenfeller 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. Pl4917-US1 5867 EXAMINER CASTRO, ALFONSO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): kara.coffman@ericsson.com kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS WEIDENFELLER Appeal2014-003392 Application 10/237,461 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-003392 Application 10/237,461 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 34--46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a monitor that tracks operation of an information transmission/receiver, an information extractor and an information presenter to determine whether the operation of the devices accomplishes one or more predetermined conditions (Abstract). Independent claim 34, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (with emphasis added): 34. An information presentation device, for presenting information to a user, arranged to receive multimedia signals from a network server, the presentation device comprising: an information transmission receiver for receiving multimedia signals from the network server; an information extractor for extracting presentation information from at least one of the multimedia signals to be presented, an information presenter for presenting the extracted presentation information; a monitor arranged to - monitor the operation of the information extractor and the information presenter, - determine whether the operation of the information extractor and the information presenter fulfills one or more predetermined conditions, and - generate an operation condition signal and provide said operation condition signal to the network server, 2 Appeal2014-003392 Application 10/237,461 said operation condition signal conveying an indication of the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of said one or more conditions, wherein the monitor is configured to automatically provide said operation condition signal at a predefined rate indicating that the multimedia signals are still being received. REFERENCES and THE REJECTIONS Claims 34--37, 39--43, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aras et al. (US 5,872,588; issued Feb. 16, 1999), in view of Pras et al., Internet Accounting, IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE, May 2001, at 108-113 ("Pras"). Final Act. 4. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aras, in view of Pras, and in further view of Mashinsky (US 7,600,029 Bl; issued Oct. 6, 2009). Final Act. 15. Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aras, in view of Pras, and in further view of Bowcutt et al. (US 6,308,328 Bl; issued Oct. 23, 2001). Final 1A .. ct. 16. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aras, in view of Pras, and in further view of Childress et al. (US 4,905,234; issued Feb. 27, 1990). Final Act. 17. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Aras and Pras teaches the limitation of "wherein the monitor is configured to automatically provide said operation condition signal at a predefined rate indicating that the multimedia signals are still being received," as recited in claim 34. 3 Appeal2014-003392 Application 10/237,461 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues that the combination of Aras and Pras fails to suggest a monitor "configured to automatically provide said operation condition signal at a predefined rate indicating that the multimedia signals are still being received" as is recited in claim 34 (App. Br. 9). In particular, Appellant argues the subscriber behavior information transmitted using a universal audio-visual identification ("A VI") code is not transmitted at a constant rate in Aras, and there is no indication that any of the transmitted rates themselves have any correlation to continued reception of data (Reply Br. 3 (citing Aras 7:54--56)). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds Aras teaches the A VI information is placed into a Behavior Collection Table and transmitted to a Behavior Collection Center ("BCC") server (Answer 8 (footnote 8); see Aras 12:40-54) with the transmission to the BCC made "on the fly" (Ans. 5). The Examiner further finds Aras teaches encoding and providing the A VI signal periodically, such that the "on the fly" transmission to the BCC will effectively be sent at the same rate interval. See Ans. 7-8; Aras 7:30-67 (stating "A VI will be provided at intervals in the audio-visual material. These intervals may be periodic or aperiodic") and 17:57---61. Therefore, the combination of Aras and Pras discloses the claimed monitor. 1 1 Separately, we note Aras teaches sending operation conditions signals at a predefined rate, as Aras discloses the "collected data table may be reported to the BCC on the fly ... or periodically or as requested by the BCC when 4 Appeal2014-003392 Application 10/237,461 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 34, as well as independent claims 39, 41, and 43, and dependent claims 35-38, 40, 42, and 44--46 which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Aras and Pras teaches the limitation of "wherein the monitor is configured to automatically provide said operation condition signal at a predefined rate indicating that the multimedia signals are still being received," as recited in claim 34. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 34--46 is affirmed. AFFIRMED the data table is nearing full or some combination of the above" (emphasis added). Aras 17:57---61. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation