Ex Parte Gorbatov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

09910574 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EUGENE GORBATOV and JUAN RIVERO
____________

Appeal 2010-001594
Application 09/910,574
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001594
Application 09/910,574

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 26, 27, 29-31, and 33. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention notifies viewers watching a television (TV)
program on one channel about events in programs on other channels. See
generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a television stream;
causing the display of a first program of a first television channel
received in the television stream for viewing by a viewer; and
notifying the viewer of an event occurring in a second program of a
second television channel being broadcast concurrently with the first
program, notification of the event being transmitted over a third television
channel.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Stettner US 2002/0104090 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
(filed Dec. 21, 2000)
Omoigui US 2005/0086688 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
(eff. filed Dec. 16, 1999)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 26, 27, 29-31, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Omoigui and Stettner. Ans.
3; Fin. Rej. 3-8.1

1 The Examiner’s Answer does not expressly state the Examiner’s grounds
of rejection, but instead refers us to a previous office action. Ans. 3. Such
incorporations by reference, however, are improper under current practice.
Appeal 2010-001594
Application 09/910,574

3

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Omoigui discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 except for transmitting event notifications over a third
TV channel distinct from the channels on which the recited first and second
programs are broadcast, but cites Stettner as teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Fin. Rej. 3-4; Ans. 3-4.
The Examiner reasons that since it is known to transmit Stettner’s Advanced
Television Enhancement Forum (ATVEF) triggers in a channel’s vertical
blanking interval (VBI), the associated event notifications are therefore
transmitted on a third TV channel as claimed.
Appellants argue that event notifications in Stettner are more likely
sent on the same TV channel as that of the displayed program—not a
different channel as claimed. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2. The issue before
us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Omoigui and Stettner collectively would have taught or suggested
transmitting the recited event notifications on a third TV channel?

See MPEP § 1207.02 (“An examiner’s answer should not refer, either
directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the
point relied on in the answer.”). Nevertheless, we refer to (1) the Final
Rejection mailed July 18, 2007; (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 12, 2007
(supplemented May 14, 2009); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January
25, 2008; and (4) the Reply Brief filed May 19, 2008.
Appeal 2010-001594
Application 09/910,574

4
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s findings regarding Omoigui
are undisputed, as well as the Examiner’s acknowledgement that Omoigui
does not transmit the recited event notifications on a third TV channel. Nor
is it disputed that Stettner’s ATVEF triggers in Paragraph 0032 (1)
correspond to the recited event notifications, and (2) can be sent on a
channel’s VBI line. See App. Br. 6 (acknowledging that Stettner’s event
notifications or ATVEF triggers are “possibly” sent on the VBI line for the
displayed TV channel). Accord Spec. 6:26–7:9 (noting that ATVEF triggers
can be (1) sent on a TV signal’s VBI line, and (2) interpreted as notifications
of events in programs on other channels).
The question, then, is whether this VBI is a separate “channel”—a
term whose construction is critical to resolving this dispute. To this end,
since Appellants do not identify a definition of “channel” in the
Specification, we therefore construe the term with its plain meaning. A
“channel” is defined, in pertinent part, as “a single path for transmitting
electrical signals . . . .”2 Therefore, under the term’s broadest reasonable
interpretation, the recited third TV channel is not limited to a particular
frequency on which a TV program is broadcast as Appellants seem to
suggest (see App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2), but rather includes other paths for
transmitting electrical signals. On this record, we see no reason why a TV
signal’s VBI would not constitute such a path, particularly since it can
convey the ATVEF event-notification triggers as both the Examiner and
Appellants indicate. Fin. Rej. 4; Ans. 4; App. Br. 6.

2 COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 97 (Phillip A.
Leplante, ed. 1999).
Appeal 2010-001594
Application 09/910,574

5
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6-15, 18-21, 26, 27, 29-31, and 33
not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 26, 27,
29-31, and 33 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 26, 27, 29-
31, and 33 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

babc