10286128 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte Hunt

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2014

10286128 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD C. HUNT ____________ Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7, 9, 19, and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is an interactive television (ITV) system that automatically encodes ITV data into a broadcast signal according to a program schedule. See generally Abstract. Claim 7 is illustrative: Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 2 7. An interactive television (ITV) system configured to generate a playlist including a schedule of television programs to be broadcast during a particular period of time, the ITV system comprising: a scheduling system providing ITV data and an associated start time and duration, the start time being associated with a wall time and not a tape time included in the playlist, the start time being determined irrespective of timing of any specific television program; an ITV automation unit coupled to the scheduling system, the ITV automation unit being configured to receive the ITV data and the associated start time and duration and generate an encoder command in response to a detection that the wall time has reached the start time; an encoder coupled to the ITV automation unit, the encoder encoding the ITV data into a broadcast signal in response to the encoder command; and a transmitter for transmitting the encoded video signal to an ITV receiver, wherein the ITV receiver is configured to receive the ITV data and provide an ITV event for the duration associated with the ITV data. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gebhardt (US 7,222,155 B1; issued May 22, 2007; filed Apr. 25, 2001) and Blackketter (US 6,415,438 B1; issued July 2, 2002; filed Oct. 5, 1999). Ans. 3-5.1 The Examiner rejected claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gebhardt, Blackketter, and Gissin (US 2002/0199187 A1; published Dec. 26, 2002; prov. appl’n filed Feb. 26, 2001). Ans. 5-7. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gebhardt, Blackketter, and Lee (US 2002/0073422 A1; published June 13, 2002; filed Dec. 7, 2000). Ans. 7-9. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 21, 2010 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 2, 2011 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 3 THE REJECTION OVER GEBHARDT AND BLACKKETTER Regarding claim 7, the Examiner finds that Gebhardt’s ITV system includes a “scheduling system” (elements 104 and 106) coupled to an “ITV automation unit” (broadcast server 110) configured to (1) receive ITV data and associated start time and duration, and (2) generate an encoder command responsive to detecting that a “wall time”2 has reached the start time. Ans. 3-4, 9-13. The Examiner also maps Gebhardt’s data insertion unit (DIU) 116 to the recited encoder that encodes the ITV data into a broadcast signal responsive to the encoder command. Ans. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Gebhardt does not explicitly teach (1) determining the start time irrespective of any specific program’s timing, and (2) detecting that a wall time has reached the start time, the Examiner cites Blackketter as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5. Appellant argues that Gebhardt and Blackketter do not teach or suggest the recited ITV automation unit that is not only configured to receive ITV data, start time, and duration, but also generate an encoder command responsive to detecting that the wall time has reached the start time. Br. 5-8. Gebhardt’s scheduling system is said to be deficient in this regard because it does not receive the recited data, but rather receives a playlist and acts as an intermediary. Br. 6. According to Appellant, Gebhardt’s scheduling system does not provide control signals responsive to anything, much less the wall time reaching the start time as claimed. Br. 7. 2 “Wall time” is the time of day. Wall time events, then, are those that related to the time of day as opposed to tape time. Spec. 14:6-8. Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 4 Appellant adds that Gebhardt’s broadcast server likewise fails to teach the recited ITV automation unit because the server outputs commands to viewers’ broadcast receivers during the broadcast, whereas the recited automation unit controls an encoder to operate on a signal before it is sent to the end user. Br. 8. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 by finding that Gebhardt and Blackketter collectively would have taught or suggested an ITV automation unit coupled to a scheduling system, where the unit is configured to (1) receive ITV data and associated start time and duration, and (2) generate an encoder command responsive to detecting that a wall time has reached the start time? ANALYSIS We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. As noted above, the Examiner maps various elements of Gebhardt’s Figure 1 to the recited scheduling system, ITV automation unit, and encoder as summarized below: Element recited in claim 7 Corresponding feature in Gebhardt “scheduling system” Scheduling system 106 and traffic system 104 (Ans. 10) “ITV automation unit” broadcast server 110 (Ans. 10) “encoder” DIU 116 (Ans. 4) Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 5 Table 1: Examiner’s mapping various recited features to Gebhardt These mapped features and their relationships are shown in Gebhardt’s Figure 1 below: Gebhardt’s Figure 1 showing various mapped features and relationships As shown in Gebhardt’s Figure 1 above, the traffic system 104 (1) receives a program schedule from a broadcaster 114, and (2) provides a playlist 113 to the scheduling system 106, where the playlist identifies programs to be broadcast and their start and end times. Gebhardt, col. 8, ll. 26-33. This playlist is also sent to the broadcast server that then uses this information to (1) determine which interactive applications are broadcast at various times and channels, and (2) output appropriate commands that are broadcast to receivers 120. Id., col. 9, l. 65 – col. 10, l. 9. Using this Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 6 playlist, the broadcast server passes the interactive application 115 and/or various commands to the DIU 116 to incorporate the application into the broadcast data concurrent with the program’s broadcast. Id., col. 10, ll. 10-17. Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Gebhardt’s broadcast server for teaching the recited ITV automation unit. As the Examiner indicates, not only does the broadcast server receive ITV data from broadcasters and associated start time and duration from playlists, but this server also generates DIU commands (“encoder commands”) in response to at least this received data, including the start time. See Ans. 10- 11 (noting that Gebhardt’s broadcast server (1) determines which interactive application should be broadcast on a particular channel at a particular time, and (2) sends that application with commands to the DIU to incorporate the application into the video data). Appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged shortcomings of Gebhardt’s scheduling system in connection with the recited ITV automation unit (Br. 6-7) are inapposite to the Examiner’s position that maps Gebhardt’s broadcast server—not scheduling system—to the recited automation unit as noted above. Accord Ans. 11 (noting this point). Appellant’s contention that Gebhardt’s broadcast server likewise fails to teach the recited ITV automation unit because the server outputs commands to viewers’ broadcast receivers during the broadcast, whereas the recited automation unit controls an encoder to operate on a signal before it is sent to the end user (Br. 8) is likewise unavailing. First, even assuming, without deciding, that Gebhardt’s broadcast server outputs commands to the viewers’ receivers, it does so via the DIU as the Examiner correctly Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 7 indicates. Ans. 12-13. Second, Gebhardt’s broadcast server’s generating commands to the DIU to incorporate applications concurrent with the program’s broadcast at least suggests that the wall time would have reached that program’s start time because it is currently broadcast (i.e., the wall time is at least the start time). See Gebhardt, col. 10, ll. 12-17. To the extent that Appellant argues that claim 7 requires encoding simultaneously with program’s start time (see Br. 8), such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In any event, Gebhardt’s DIU encodes ITV and video data before the encoded video signal is sent to the end user as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 13. But leaving this aside, the Examiner’s rejection is not based solely on Gebhardt in this regard, but rather also on Blackketter that teaches sending a trigger in a video system that is executed based on wall-clock time as opposed to a media time base. Ans. 4 (citing Blackketter, col. 5, l. 42 – col. 6, l. 2). Based on this functionality, providing such a wall-time-based trigger in connection with Gebhardt’s broadcast server to generate encoder commands responsive to detecting that the wall time has reached the start time predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That Gebhardt’s broadcast server determines which applications should be broadcast at a particular time (col. 9, ll. 59-61) and can send interactive content responsive to the start of a television show (col. 12, ll. 14-20) only bolsters the Examiner’s position in this regard. Appeal 2011-011618 Application 10/286,128 8 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 7, and claims 9, 19, 21, and 22 not argued separately with particularity.3 THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejections of claims 23-27 (see Br. 4-5; Ans. 5-9), we summarily sustain these rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 9, 19, and 21-27 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 9, 19, and 21-27 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 bab 3 Should prosecution follow this opinion, we leave to the Examiner to determine whether the lack of antecedent basis for “the encoder command” in line 13 of claim 19 renders that claim indefinite under § 112(b).