Ex Parte Carton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

11084268 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

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.
11/084,268 03/18/2005 Owen A. Carton 05.0165 1091
7590 07/30/2013
TellX, Inc.
1305 Tournament Drive
Hillsborough, CA 94010
EXAMINER
ADEGEYE, OLUWASEUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2013 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 OWEN A. CARTON and MARTHA C. SERRANO

____________

Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 2, 3, 6-18, and 20-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to interactive video which
provides paid sponsorship opportunities for any or all content placement in
video features. When a viewer desires additional information about content
seen via a DVD, the viewer presses the Menu button on the DVD remote
control. A screen is then displayed which is a still image of the current
scene in the video feature. Icons on the screen indicate items for which
more information is available. Spec. ¶ [0026].
Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
Claim 2: A method of providing promotional content for
video content, the method comprising:
associating video content with promotional content and
storing information about said association in an index; and
storing said index and said promotional content on a
digital video medium containing said video content, thereby
allowing a viewer of said video content to, using controls of a
device for displaying said video content, enable the display of,
graphically navigate to, and directly interrogate icons displayed
on a single display unit with a scene from the video content,
whereby said icons link to and activate the display of said
promotional content regarding scene content for the purposes of
promotion, advertising, education, entertainment, or otherwise,
wherein the display of said promotional content is initiated by
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

3
intercepting a menu button command and returning a content
promotion screen.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 6, 8-18, and 20-23under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Halgas (US Pub. 2004/0131335 A1;
July 8, 2004) in view of Rashkovskiy (US 6,616,533 B1; Sept. 9,
2003).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy and Arimilli
(U.S. 2004/0073909 A1; Apr. 15, 2004).

ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy teaches the
limitation of
directly interrogate icons displayed on a single display unit with
a scene from the video content, whereby said icons link to and
activate the display of said promotional content for the purposes
of promotion, advertising . . . , wherein the display of said
promotional content is initiated by intercepting a menu button
command and returning a content promotion screen

as recited in claim 2;
2. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy and Arimilli
teaches the limitation of “set a bit in general purpose registry memory
of said DVD player that indicates the extent to which said DVD
player is content promotion capable” as recited in claim 7;
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

4
3. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy and Arimilli
teaches the limitation of “displaying marked scenes such that icons
overlay indexed objects, wherein selecting an icon returns information
about a selected object” as recited in claim 24.

ANALYSIS
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13-18, and 20-23
Appellants argue that Rashkovskiy does not teach or suggest the
limitation of “allowing a viewer to directly interrogate icons displayed on a
single display unit with a scene from the video content” as recited in claim 2
(emphasis added) (App. Br. 16). Appellants explain Rashkovskiy does not
teach or suggest displaying icons on a single display unit with a scene from
the video content that was being played previously (App. Br. 17). Rather,
Rashkovskiy teaches displaying a game character 14 (Fig. 1) in a video
scene, and then displaying an action Figure or doll 14a (Figs. 2 and 5).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. At the outset we note
that Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim
language. Claim 2 recites that a user can
directly interrogate icons displayed on a single display unit
with a scene from the video content, whereby said icons link to
and activate the display of said promotional content for the
purposes of promotion, advertising . . . , wherein the display of
said promotional content is initiated by intercepting a menu
button command and returning a content promotion screen

(Claim 2, emphasis added). In other words, the claim recites that icons
displayed within the video content in a single display can link and activate
the display of promotional content for the purposes of advertising which
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

5
triggers the return of a content promotion screen. Nowhere does the claim
recite that the content promotion screen is overlaid on the scene from the
video content, which is essentially what Appellants argue. Nor does the
claim recite that the content promotion screen is displayed simultaneously
with the video content on a single display. Note also that a single display
can display content separately at different times.
Rashkovskiy’s Figure 1 shows a hypothetical graphical user interface
10 which includes a background image element 12 and an action character
image element 14 (i.e., scene from a video content includes background
scene and the action character) (col. 2, ll. 3-8). Rashkovskiy also teaches
that the user may utilize a mouse cursor 16 to select a variety of hot
clickable image elements such as the image element 14 (i.e., icon) in a
graphical user interface 10 (i.e., single display of graphical user interface 10)
that is part of a sequence of video images (col. 2, ll. 9-12). Rashkovskiy
further teaches that “hot clickable” refers to the incorporation of anchors into
the code of an image element such that when the user selects the image
element the user is linked or hyperlinked to other information (col. 2, ll. 11-
19). Once the image element 14 is selected, then the graphical user interface
18 is displayed with advertising information 20 (i.e., promotional content)
(col. 2, ll. 20-26, Fig. 2). Accordingly, Rashkovskiy teaches the disputed
limitation of allowing a viewer to directly interrogate icons (i.e., element 14)
displayed on a single display unit with a scene from the video content (i.e.,
wherein element 14 is displayed on a single display unit 10 with a scene of
the video content which includes the background image 12).
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

6
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 3, 6, 13-18, and 20-23 which were
not separately argued.
Claims 7-12
Appellants argue that Arimilli does not teach or suggest the limitation
of a DVD that is operable to “set a bit in general purpose registry memory of
said DVD player that indicates the extent to which said DVD player is
content promotion capable” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 20). Appellants
assert that although Arimilli describes a “promotion bit field,” this
promotion bit field has no relationship to DVDs or to indicating whether
DVD players are content promotion capable (App. Br. 21).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Arimilli discloses setting a bit (36) (¶[0041]) in a data
processing system (¶ [0010]). Arimilli teaches access to memory based on
the bit value ((¶[0041]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the concept
of access to memory as taught by Arimilli could have been extended, by one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention, from Arimilli’s processing
system to the DVD player of Rashkovskiy (Ans. 13).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 8-12 which were not separately
argued.
Claims 24-29
Appellants argue that none of the references teach the limitation of
“displaying marked scenes such that icons overlay indexed objects, wherein
selecting an icon returns information about a selected object” as recited in
claim 24 (App. Br. 23).
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

7
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Rashkovskiy
teaches that when a user pauses the video content, the scene at that point is
the marked scene (Fig. 2 and Fig. 8). Icons (22 and 24) clearly overlay the
indexed objects (Fig. 2). Rashkovskiy discloses that selecting icon (22) will
return information about a selected object (Ans.13, col. 2, ll. 27-30).
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 25-29 which were not separately
argued.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy teaches the
limitation of
directly interrogate icons displayed on a single display unit with
a scene from the video content, whereby said icons link to and
activate the display of said promotional content for the purposes
of promotion, advertising . . . , wherein the display of said
promotional content is initiated by intercepting a menu button
command and returning a content promotion screen

as recited in claim 2;
2. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy and Arimilli
teaches the limitation of “set a bit in general purpose registry memory
of said DVD player that indicates the extent to which said DVD
player is content promotion capable” as recited in claim 7;
3. The combination of Halgas in view of Rashkovskiy and Arimilli
teaches the limitation of “displaying marked scenes such that icons
Appeal 2011-001088
Application 11/084,268

8
overlay indexed objects, wherein selecting an icon returns information
about a selected object” as recited in claim 24.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 6-18, and 20-29 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