Ex Parte Krukar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13371602 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
1000-2727 4462
EXAMINER
TOPGYAL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/371,602 02/13/2012
7590
Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC
P.O. Box 4484
Albuquerque, NM 87196
04/26/2017
Richard H. Krukar
04/26/2017 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 RICHARD H. KRUKAR, LUIS M. ORTIZ,
and KERMIT D. LOPEZ
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
Technology Center 2400
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 10—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—9
have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and
system for media annotation, selection, and display of additional information
associated with a region of interest in video content (Spec. Abstract). Claim
10, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
10. A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-usable medium embodying computer code, said
computer program code comprising instructions executable
by said processor and configured for:
receiving a selection from a person wherein the person
selected a region on a first display device and within a
particular frame of video content to access additional
information about an area of interest associated with said
region within said particular frame; and
displaying said additional information to said person on
a second display device, in response to said person
selecting said region associated with said particular
frame of video content to access said additional
information about said area of interest associated with
said region within said particular frame.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Thomas et al.
Katcher et al.
Touboul et al.
US 2002/0049975 Al Apr. 25, 2002
US 2008/0066129 Al Mar. 13, 2008
US 2010/0154007 Al June 17, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
REJECTIONS
Claims 10-20 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Katcher and Thomas (Final Act. 4—7).
Claims 21—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Touboul and Thomas (Final Act. 8—12).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10—20 and 29
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 10-20 and 29,
is not obvious over Katcher and Thomas (App. Br. 12—15). The issues
presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Katcher and
Thomas teaches or suggests “displaying said additional information to said
person on a second display device,” as recited in independent claim 10 and
commensurately recited in independent claim 16?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Katcher and Thomas?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
Initially, we note the Examiner relied on Katcher as disclosing the
recited limitations except for “wherein the display to said person is done on
a second display device” (Final Act. 5). The Examiner relies on Thomas as
teaching the second display device as recited in claim 10 {id.).
Appellants argue “[a] user of Thomas’ system can watch a video
transmission of an event and bet on it via an interactive betting interface, but
not by selecting any element within the video content because Thomas'
interactive content is the betting interface itself’ (App. Br. 9). The
Examiner, however, is relying on Katcher as teaching the recited limitations
except for displaying to a second device (Final Act. 5). Thus, Appellants’
arguments regarding modification of Thomas’ UI button and selecting
additional information (App. Br. 10—11) are not persuasive as they do not
address the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 5—6). Additionally,
Appellants’ argument that no rational underpinning exists for expanding
Thomas’ relocatable betting interface to provisioning of any related content
on a secondary display (App. Br. 11), is not persuasive as the Examiner is
relying on Thomas for teaching displaying information on a second display,
not provisioning of related content (Final Act. 5).
Similarly, Appellants argue “Katcher’s interactive interface provides
for selecting scene elements within the video content. Switching Katcher’s
interface to a second display leaves the video content without interactivity
and the interactive interface with no video content and therefor no scene
elements to select” (App. Br. 11). Appellants, however, are arguing
limitations not recited in the claim and are not arguing the Examiner’s
articulated combination. More specifically, claim 10 recites “displaying said
additional information to said person on a second display device.” The
4
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
additional information is “about an area of interest associated with said
region within said particular frame.” Thus, the Examiner is not “switching
Katcher’s interface to a second display” (Final Act. 5).
Appellants further argue the proposed combination leaves Katcher
unsuitable for its intended purpose because the proposed modification of
Katcher uses and depends on additional information being displayed on the
same screen and leaves Thomas unsuitable for its intended purposed because
the proposed modification “seems awkward for dividing the gambler’s
attention between gambling information and gambling interface” (App.
Br. 12). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. More specifically,
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument that
displaying information to a second display would render Katcher unsuitable
to provide the ability to interact with hyperlinks in a television broadcast
(Katcher, Title, Tflf 2, 4). The test for obviousness is not whether the entire
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of a primary reference, nor that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 414, 425 (CCPA
1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). (Underline added).
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Fastly, Appellants argue the proposed rationale does not read on the
proposed modification (App. Br. 12); however, again Appellants are not
addressing the Examiner’s combination or articulated motivation (Final
Act. 6). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Moreover, the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
5
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420—21 (2007)). Furthermore, Appellants have presented no
evidence that combining Thomas’ teaching of using a second display with
Katcher’s system would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art” (See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19)).
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of
Katcher and Thomas fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the
limitations as recited in independent claim 10 and commensurately recited
independent claim 16, not separately argued (App. Br. 9—12). Nor have
Appellants persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teaching and
suggestions of Thomas. Dependent claims 11—15, 17—20 and 29, not
separately argued (id. at 2), fall with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-20 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Katcher and Thomas.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 21-28
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 21—28, is not
obvious over Touboul and Thomas (App. Br. 12—15). The issues presented
by the arguments are:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Touboul and
Thomas teaches or suggests “displaying additional information to the person
on a second display device in response to the person choosing the scene
element,” as recited in claim 21?
6
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
Issue 4: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Touboul and Thomas?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants assert “substantially the same arguments apply with
“ToubouF replacing “Katcher” (App. Br. 13). Similar to above, Appellants’
arguments are directed to the references individually and are not addressed
to the Examiner’s proffered combination (Final Act. 8—12). Appellants’
arguments directed to Thomas are not persuasive for similar reasons as set
forth above. More specifically, the Examiner relies on Touboul to teach the
recited invention, except “the display to said person is done on a second
display device” on which the Examiner relies on Thomas to teach (id. at 9).
Appellants additionally argue “[t]he proposed combination of Touboul
and Thomas would require substantial redesign and reconstruction of the
primary reference whether that primary reference is Touboul or Thomas
(App. Br. 14). Again, similar to our reasoning with respect to claim 10,
Appellants are not addressing the Examiner’s combination of teachings
(Final Act. 8—12). Additionally, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it uniquely challenging or difficult to combine
Thomas’ teaching of two displays with Touboul’s teachings.
7
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
We are further not persuaded “[t]he proposed combination leave
Touboul unsuitable for its intended purpose” as Appellants assert (App. Br.
14). Appellants further argue “[t]he proposed combination renders Thomas
unsuitable for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 15). Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of Examiner error.
Lastly, Appellants argue the Examiner’s articulated rational is in error. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for reasons as set forth with
respect to claim 10 above.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of
Touboul and Thomas fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in
independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22—28, not separately argued
(App. Br. 2). Nor have Appellants persuaded us the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings and suggestions of Touboul and Thomas.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21—28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Touboul and Thomas.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—20 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katcher and Thomas is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Touboul and Thomas 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal 2016-005671
Application 13/371,602
AFFIRMED
9