Ex Parte Kolessar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

09896246 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD S. KOLESSAR
____________

Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-23, 26-49, 52-82, 85-95, 99-105, and 108-142.
Claims 3, 4, 24, 25, 50, 51, 83, 84, 96-98, 106, and 107 have been objected
to as being dependent upon a rejected claims but would otherwise be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the
base claim and any intervening claims. See Br. 4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a technique for identifying and
measuring media data usage at a user location by a remote decoding
technique. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the
key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for measuring usage of media data received at a user
location, the media data being reproducible as comprehensible images
or comprehensible sounds and having ancillary codes in at least some
of the media data, comprising:
receiving the media data in a monitoring device at the user
location;
forming, without processing the media data sufficiently to decode
an ancillary code, a data set in the monitoring device from the media
data by including in the data set, data sufficient to decode the ancillary
codes in the media data, while excluding from the data set, data
required either to reproduce the comprehensible images or the
comprehensible sounds;
communicating the data set to a processing system located
remotely from the user location; and
at the remotely located processing system, processing the data set
to decode the ancillary codes.

Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Lu US 6,647,548 B1 Nov. 11, 2003
(filed Sept. 6, 1996)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8-14, 21, 22, 26, 30-34, 41, 48,
55-59, 66, 67, 74, 81, 85, 88, 91, 94, 101, 104, 108, 111, 112, 117-121, and
126-1421 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lu. Ans. 3-7.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5-7, 15-20, 23, 27-29, 35-40,
42-47, 49, 52-54, 60-65, 68-73, 75-80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 99,
100, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 113-116, and 122-1252 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Lu and Official Notice. Ans. 7-11.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER LU
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Lu discloses all its limitations. Ans. 4-5. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Lu discloses a remotely-located processing system (e.g., central office
apparatus 32) that receives a data set (e.g., tuning records 90) from a
household (e.g., 12). See Ans. 4-5, 13. The Examiner maps Lu’s discussion
of correlating an ancillary code with the program records to the step of
processing the data set to decode the ancillary codes. See Ans. 5, 13.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has misinterpreted the meaning
of “decoding.” Br. 15. Appellant argues that Lu’s correlation process fails

1 Claims 111, 112, 117-121, and 126-142 are not listed in the rejection’s
heading but are discussed in the body of the rejection. See Ans. 5-7.
2 Claims 23, 113-116, and 122-125 are not listed in the rejection’s heading
but are discussed in the body of the rejection. See Ans. 8-9.
Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

4
to teach processing a data set to decode the ancillary code at a remote
location because the code has already been read and decoded at a reader 52
or 60 at the household 12 or a portable memory apparatus 26. See Br. 14-15.
Appellant also asserts that Lu forms the data set by processing the media
data after decoding the ancillary code using the reader and thus does not
form the data set without processing the media data sufficiently to decode an
ancillary code as recited. See Br. 15-16.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Lu discloses (1) forming a data set without processing the media data
sufficiently to decode an ancillary code and (2) processing the data set to
decode the ancillary codes at the remotely located processing system?

ANALYSIS
As the Examiner notes (Ans. 11), the crux of this appeal focuses on
the meaning of the recited word, “decode.” In essence, the Examiner finds
this word should be given a broader interpretation than Appellant contends.
Compare Ans. 11-12 with Br. 15. On balance and based on the evidence of
record, we conclude the Examiner’s claim construction of “decode” is broad,
but reasonable.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification and as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). While Appellant discloses many examples of
decoders (see Spec. ¶¶ 0038-39, 0050), Appellant does not define the term,
Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

5
“decode,” in the disclosure. We thus are not limited by these examples.
Also, Appellant does not provide any persuasive evidence that the word,
“decode,” has a particular meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Given that no special or particular meaning has been established for the
term, “decode,” the word will be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
We find the phrase, “decode,” has various meanings, including the act of
producing a selected output based on input signals3 or to translate a message
from code.4 Based on this understanding, we turn to Lu.
When discussing processing the data set and ancillary code, the
Examiner cites Lu’s discussion of block 124 in Figure 5 and correlating
ancillary codes with the program records stored at a program library 88 in
Figure 2. See Ans. 5, 13 (citing col. 13, ll. 17-25). While not directly
converting an ancillary code into its original form, Lu discloses that the
ancillary codes (e.g., 96 in Fig. 4) are correlated with the program records in
order to identify the program by obtaining the program ID associated with
the ancillary codes. Col. 11, l. 61 – col. 12, l. 9; col. 12, ll. 42-44; col. 13, ll.
15-26; Figs. 4-5. This process in Lu involves using inputs (e.g., ancillary
codes) to produce a selected output (e.g., program ID that identifies the
program) as well as translating the ancillary code into a message (e.g.,
identifying program). See id. Thus, the ancillary code is decoded in a broad
sense and as broadly as recited.

3 MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 149 (5th ed. 2002) defines
“decoder” (second definition) as“[i]n electronics or hardware, a type of
circuit that produces one or more selected output signals based on the
combination of input signals it receives.”
4 THE NEW AMERICAN WEBSTER HANDY COLLEGE DICTIONARY 143 (1981)
defines “decode” as “translate a message from code.”
Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

6
Also, Appellant asserts that Lu does not disclose processing the data
set to decode the ancillary codes at the remotely-located processing system
because the ancillary code is previously decoded at the ancillary code reader.
Br. 14-16. While it is true that the ancillary code is read at the reader (see
col. 11, ll. 11-14) and arguably decoded by extracting information from a
signal, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not preclude further
decoding of the ancillary code at the remotely-located processing system.
Additionally, contrary to Appellant’s contentions (Br. 15 (emphasis added)),
claim 1 does not recite the “initial decoding of ancillary codes is carried out
by a processing system located remotely from the recited user location.”
In essence, Lu decodes the ancillary code partially into alphanumeric
form and then further decodes the code to yield a program name at the
central office. Lu discloses the ancillary code is first read by a household
ancillary code reader 52 to extract the ancillary codes, such as those shown
in an alphanumeric form (e.g., 1FA377, 4FA5BB). See col. 11, ll. 11-14;
col. 12, ll. 1-8, 42-44; Fig. 4. Being in an alphanumeric form as the
Examiner notes (Ans. 13), this code field 96 is a string of characters but does
not identify a program and is thus only partially decoded. Additionally, as
explained above, the ancillary code is then further decoded to identify a
program by outputting a program identifier based on correlation. See col.
11, l. 61 – col. 12, l. 9; col. 12, ll. 42-44; col. 13, ll. 15-25; Figs. 4-5.
Moreover, Lu discloses forming a data set which is performed
separately from the step of reading the ancillary code at reader 52. That is,
Lu discloses forming data sets (e.g., records 90) using processor 40 when
storing the ancillary codes and other information (see col. 9, ll. 37-48; col.
12, ll. 37-44; Fig. 2), and this process does not involve decoding the
Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

7
ancillary code. Thus, Lu discloses forming a data set, without processing the
media data to decode the ancillary code. Also, the reader as explained only
processes the ancillary code partially and thus does not process the media
data sufficiently to decode the ancillary code as recited. We therefore find
Lu discloses both forming a data set without processing the media data
sufficiently to decode an ancillary code and processing the data set to decode
the ancillary codes at a remotely-located processing system.
Lastly, Appellant contends that the “sanity processing” does not
decode ancillary codes. Br. 14, 16. We need not address this argument
further or decide whether the disclosed sanity processing (see col. 12,
ll. 44-54; Fig. 5) decodes ancillary codes, because Lu’s correlation step, as
explained above, can reasonably be mapped to the recited step of processing
the data set to decode the ancillary codes at the remotely located processing
system.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 8-14, 21, 22, 26, 30-34, 41,
48, 55-59, 66, 67, 74, 81, 85, 88, 91, 94, 101, 104, 108, 111, 112, 117-121,
and 126-142 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
For the obviousness rejection, Appellant refers to the arguments made
above in connection with claim 1. Br. 17. The issues before us, then, are the
same as those concerning claim 1, and we refer Appellant to our previous
discussion. We will therefore sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 5-7,
15-20, 23, 27-29, 35-40, 42-47, 49, 52-54, 60-65, 68-73, 75-80, 82, 86, 87,
89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 113-116, and 122-125.
Appeal 2009-015208
Application 09/896,246

8

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8-14, 21, 22, 26,
30-34, 41, 48, 55-59, 66, 67, 74, 81, 85, 88, 91, 94, 101, 104, 108, 111, 112,
117-121, and 126-142 under § 102 and claims 2, 5-7, 15-20, 23, 27-29,
35-40, 42-47, 49, 52-54, 60-65, 68-73, 75-80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95,
99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 113-116, and 122-125 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-23, 26-49, 52-82,
85-95, 99-105, and 108-142 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

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

09/896,246
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Ronald S. Kolessar
Examiner

Timothy Newlin
Art Unit

2400

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

THE NEW AMERICAN WEBSTER HANDY COLLEGE DICTIONARY 143 (1981).

V

MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 149 (5th ed. 2002).

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Delete Last PagelAdd A Page
INCLUDES ABBREVIATIONS, GEOGRAPHICAL

NAMES. FOREIGN WeRDSAND PHRASES,

FORMS OF ADDRESS

"
ALBERT and LOY MOREHEAD

Editors

Expanded Edition prepared by

Philip D. Morehead and

Andrew T. Morehead

(f)
ASIG....ET BOOK

NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY

©' i98IB~'PHILIP D: MOREHEAD AND
MOREHEAD
:OpYRIGHT © RENEWED 1979 BY ANDREW T. MOREHEAD AND
PHILIP D. MOREHEAD .
CONTENTS
STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
How I:o USE THIS DICTIONARY
Spelling
Syllabication
Guide to Pronunciation
Inflectional Forms
Plural Forms of Nouns
Possessive Forms
Inflection of Regular Verbs
Comparison of Adjectives and Adverbs
The Formation of Additional Words
American, British and Canadian Spellings
DICTIONARY
ABBREVIATIONS
Including All Abbreviations Used in This Dictionary
PRONOUNCING GAZETTEER
4
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
11
605
613
,CoPYRIGHT © 1972 BY ANDREW T.MoREHEAD AND
,;. PHILIP D. MOREHEAD
© 1956. 1937. 1961 BY ALBERT H. MOREHEAD
COPYRIGHT,. © 1931. 1955 BY ALBERT H. MOREHEAD
All rights reserved under the Pan-American COpyright Convention
and the International Copyright Union
Library of Congress Catalog Card: No. 35-10446

r1\ SIGNET TRADEMARK REG. U.S. PAT. OPE AND FORElGN COlJNTRl£S
\IJ" REGIsTERED TRADEMARK-MARCA REGISTRADA
HECHO EN CHICAGO. U,S.A,
FOREIGN WORDS AND PHRASES 628

Pronounced and Defined

FORMS OF ADDRESS 631

TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 635

U.S. System 635

Metric System Jc 637

SIGNS AND SYMBOLS 639

debase 142
to go ashore; disembarlc; land from a YeS- 'dec"a-he'dr'on (deli"::.-be'dr.Jri) n.
sel. -de"barka't!on, n, figure having 10 faces.
de-base' (di-bas') V,I. degrade; adulter- de'C8l"CO'ma'ni"8 (di-kal"k ... mli'
ate. -de-base'ment, n. a picture orde5ign that can be trans
de-bat'a-ble(di.bat':l-b:lI)aaj. subject to wood. glass, china, or other smooth
question or doubt; moot, faces. Also (CoI1Q9.) de-eaJ'_ ,
de-liste' (di·bat') v.i. & I. I, discuss; en· Dec'a-logueW (dek':l·lag") fl. the
gage in an argument for and against; dis- Commandments. . . ,
pule; contend, 2, reflect; consider. -fl. J, de-camp' (di-kamp') v.i_ I, march off;
a controversy; a conlest by argument. 2, a break camp, 2. depart unceremoniously;
quarrel., 11m away, " ""
de-bauch' (di-bach') v.I. conupt; ruin. de-cant' (di-kant') V.I. 1, pour gently, as
-v.L engage in wild and dissipated living. liquor fmm its sediment. 2, transfer (aliquod
-11. an intemperate party; carousal. -deb"· from olie container .to a smaller one:
Ilu'chee' (deb":l-chc') fl. -de-cant'u, fI, a fancy bottle from which
de-bauch'er-y (-3-re) fl. immoral and liquor is served. , .' ,
excessive indulgence. de-CHp'i-tate" (jii-kap·i.tiit") V:t. CuI off
de-ben'ture (di-ben'ch:lr) fl. I,a writ the head ,of; be~d. -;d~·Ha't!on,~; ,
acknowledging a debt. 2, an unsecured de-atth Ion \dl-kath Ion) n .. an athletIC
interest.bearing bond. contest conststmg of ten ,separate track n~
de-btl'Hate" (di.bil·3.tii!") V.t. weaken; field ev~nts: __. '. '. '
enfeeble, -de'bil"i-ta'tion, fl. de-clU' (dt,·ka) V.I., &.]. ;becQme d~,
'>-'bil'- ty (. '. ." < matter; rol; decompose; detenorate. -no 1,
-- l' dl·btl ;)·te) n • •eebleness. . loss of soundness health substance etc. ;
deb'it n. I, a recorded item of money deterioration. 2,.dead or decomposed mlit~
owed; a charge. 2, an entry on the left·hand ter,. ' ,
side of the ledger. which carries all items cIe-cease' (di·si!s'·) fl. death; demise. -v.i.
charged to an account. -V.t. charge with die. ' :
or as a debt. de'ce'dent (di.se·dent)n. (Law) one who
deb"O'nair' (deb";;)·nar') adj. gay; light. is dead. "
hearted; affable; counrous. . de-eeit' (dioset') n. I, the act ofdeceiving;
de'bouch' (di-boosh') v.i. come out· fraud; cheating; artifice. 2, something that
emerge, as from a narrow passageintoth~ Irickso~deeeives.-de-a!it'fuI, adj.tending
open. -de-bouch'ment, n. to deceive.
de"brief' (de"brl!f') v:l. interrogate about de-~ive' (di·.stv') V.t. give a false im­
a mission just completed. pressIon to; mislead; .delu~e; cheat; irick,
de·bris' (de.brl!') n. fragments of a for. -V.I. be untruthful; he; rrusrepresent.. :,.
mer whole; rubbish; ruins. ' deul'eraten (OO:sel'...rat") V.I. & Llessen. '
debt (det) fI: 1, that which is owed. 2, an the speed of; slow down. -de-eel""""'" '
obligation to mak.e payment in money or tWn, n.

ki~d. -debt'or, fl. one woo owes some· De·Cem'be?(di.sem'b:lr) n. th~

thing. " mOnth of the year.

de'bug V.t. remove tlte errors fmm, lIS a de'-n-cy (d-·s~n•. ) -'e 0

computer F,gram. , : ~ e v se n. Sun r
de-bunk (de-bunk') V.t. (Colloq.) strip of belD~ ~t. .~ ,.. .
of sham' show'the truth of. de'cen m'8l· (d,·sen e-;;)I)ruI,.
de-but,' (m-bii') fl. a first public appear- once in 10 'years; marking the. end

ance. -v.i. make a debut. ten-lear per:tod , -fl. observance of atenth

deb'u·tante" (deb'yiI-tiinf') fl. a young an.ntversar:l" ,

woman during 'her first season in society. de'cent(de's:lnt)adj.l,respeetable;

dec-a- (dek'~) pre! ten; tenfold. cal; moral. 2, in good taste; becoming suit,

dec'ade (dek'ad) fl. I, a period often able; proper. 3;'virtuous; modest. 4, fair;

consecutive years. 2, a set of ten. good enough.

dee',-dence (dek· ... d:lns) n. a process or de-cen'tral·izeH v . ./. & i. separate and

state of decay or deterioration. -dec'aodent, distribute (offices, duties, etc.) ofa gov:

adj. emment or ageney.

\ dee's-gram n.a metric unit of weight, 10 de-eep'tion (di-sep'sh;;)n) fl. 1, the
grams. misleading. 2, a misrepresentation; 1Il
de-caf'fein'llte"(de-kaf·::.-niit") v.t. remove fraud. -de-cep'tive, adj. iotended to
i the caffeine from. tending to deceive. .' ,lat. fat:. fiir_ fire, filII. ask; met, hI!. hiir, 'maybe; pin. pine; not, note. lIr.
"
143 decrepitate
dee'j· (des':l) pre/. one·tenth; divided by 2, deterioration. 3, (Gram.) inflection often. nouns. etc.

dee'j-bef' (des':l-bel") fl. a unit for meas.
d~-cline' (di·klin') v.i. 1, bend Or Slant
uring the loudness of sounds. down; droop. 2, approach tennination; de.
de-cide' (di-sid') v.i. I, make up one's teriorate. 3, refuse. 4, (Gram.) inflect, as a
mind; sellie or detennine,a question; render noun or adjective. -v.I. I, depress; bend
a decision. 2, choose; exercise- an option; down, 2, refuse; rejeci. -no I, a falling
-V.t. I, determine; sellie. 2, arbitrate. off; decay. 2, a gradual diminishing.
-de-cid'ed, adj. 1, unmistakable. 2, -dec'1j'na'tion (dek"li-na'sh:ln) n.
determined. de-c1lv'Hy (di.kliv'::.-re) fl. a downward
de'cid'u'Ous (di-sij'oo-:lS) adj. 1, shed, slope.

ding the leaves annually, as trees. 2, falling
de'coct' (di·kokl') v.I. extract by boiling.
off, as leaves; transitory. -de'coe'tion, n.
dec:j'mal (des';}om01I) adj.. pert. to 10 or de'code' (de·koo·) V.t, translate ames.
tenths: -no a fmetion with a power of ten sage from cOde.
for its denominator, ,-decimal point, a de"ro"'e·tage' (da'kol·..·tazh') n, (Fr,) adot to show that the number fOllowing is a low·necked fown, or !be wearing of it,decimal.
. de"coHe-te (da·'kol·ta') adj. low.necked,
dec'I'mate" (des' ... miit'') v.I. destroy a great . as an evening fown.
number of. literally one tenth. -dec:"l·ma'. de"rom-pose (de"k~m-p6z') v.t. & t, I,. lion, fl.
resolve into its original parts. 2, decay,.de-ej'pher (di.si'f;)f) V.t. I, translate from -de"com'po'si'tlon, fl.
cipber to clear language; decode .. 2, find de"con-ges'tant (de':k