Ex Parte Lord

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2009

09874421 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WILLIAM P. LORD
_____________

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421
Technology Center 2400
______________

Decided: January 5, 2009
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 12, and 18 through 26.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method for providing
synchronized replay of a previously recorded television program and
corresponding enhanced web simulcast. See page 3 of Appellant’s
Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method for recording a television program broadcast by a
TV broadcaster and web content associated with the television
program communicated by a web server, the method comprising:
receiving a request to record the television program selected by
a user;
establishing a web connection to the web server;
downloading the web content;
synchronizing for storing in a memory the television program
and the downloaded web content; and
storing the television program and the downloaded web content
in response to the request to record the television program.

REFERENCES

Hull US 2002/0056082 A1 May 9, 2002
(filed Nov. 30, 2000)

Blackketter US 6,772,438 B1 Aug 3, 2004
(filed Jun. 29, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 18 and 20 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Blackketter. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8, 10 through 12, 19, 25,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blackketter in

1 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Answer, mailed
August 9, 2007, for the respective details thereof.

2

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

view of Hull. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 4 through 8 of the
Answer.
ISSUES

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant argues on page 8 through 10 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 20 through 243 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is in error. Appellant asserts on page 8 of the Brief that the
Examiner erred in finding that Blackketter teaches concurrently recording
both video and web content upon receipt of a command from a user as
claimed in claim 18. On pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, Appellant presents a
similar argument with respect to each of claims 20, 23, and 24 further
asserting that Blackketter does not teach concurrently playing back the video
and web content.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to the claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) present us with the following issue: has Appellant
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Blackketter teaches
concurrently recording or playing back both video and web content upon
receipt of a command from a user as claimed.

2 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, received April 16,
2007 for details thereof.

3

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues on page 10 through 12 of the Brief4 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 12, 19, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant presents arguments directed
to these claims in 5 groups, each of these arguments focus on the Examiner’s
finding that Blackketter teaches concurrently recording or playing back both
video and web content upon receipt of a command from a user.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to the rejection of claims 1
through 8, 10 through 12, 19, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) present us
with the same issue as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.’” (Emphasis original). In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and
quotations omitted).

4 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, received April 16,
2007 for details thereof.
4

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Blackketter teaches a system for retrieving data associated (web
document) with a broadcast signal. Abstract.
2. Blackketter teaches that television broadcast signals can refer to web
content which the user can view. There are two ways for the content
to be transmitted to the user’s device, it can be received by a data link
or by data encoded in the vertical blanking interval of the broadcast.
Col. 2, ll. 26-54, col. 3, ll. 1-9, col. 4, ll. 46-48.
3. The web content can be additional information about the program or
provide the opportunity for the viewer to initiate interactive television
content. Blackketter, col. 7, ll. 34-38.
4. Blackketter teaches that “[t]he web page content is received and
stored locally in the television receiver for future access.” Col. 2, ll.
31-32.
5. Blackketter teaches that the receiver includes a video storage device.
The receiver performs the procedures necessary to record and
playback television programs. Col. 4, ll. 30, 40-41, 49-50, 55-60.
6. Blackketter does not specifically identify that the recording is initiated
by a user input, however we find that one of skill in the art would
recognize that a the recording operation is in response to a user input.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claims 18, 21 and 22.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Blackketter teaches concurrently recording both video and
5

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

web content upon receipt of a command from a user as claimed. Claim 18
recites “a controller that is configured to receive a record command, and to
concurrently initiate a recording of the broadcast video and a recording of
the web content, to facilitate a concurrent playback of the broadcast video
and the web content.” Thus, the scope of claim 18 recites that in response to
a user request to record a television program, the device records the
broadcast content and web content associated with the broadcast content.
Appellant has not separately addressed dependent claims 21 and 22 and
therefore claims 21 and 22 are grouped with claim 18.
The Examiner has found that Blackketter teaches that the receiver
receives and stores television signals (broadcast video) and the associated
web content. We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Blackketter teaches
that the web content is encoded with the television program. Fact 2. As the
web content is received it is stored for later use. Fact 4. Blackketter further
teaches that the receiver has the ability to record television programs. Fact
5. Although, not specifically identified in Blackketter, we find that the
skilled artisan would understand that recording is initiated by a user request.
Fact 6. Thus, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding
that Blackketter teaches recording the television program and associated web
content in response to user input and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 18, 21, and 22.

Claim 20
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 20, on page 9 of the Brief
apply the same reasoning as discussed with respect to claim 18 and argues
that Blackketter does not concurrently initiate a playback of the broadcast
6

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

video.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 18 and further
recites that the system initiates playback of the broadcast and web content
concurrently. As discussed above with respect to claim 18, we find ample
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Backketter teaches
recording the television program (broadcast video) and associated web
content. Further, Blackketter teaches that the web content is associated with
the television program and stored for later playback. Fact 1. Thus, one
skilled in the art would recognize that when the television content recorded
is played back the associated web material that was stored will also be
played back at the appropriate time. Thus, we find ample evidence of record
to support the Examiner’s finding that Blackketter teaches concurrently
playing back the recorded (stored) broadcast video and web content and we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.

Claim 23
Appellant’s arguments on page 9 of the Brief, directed to claim 23
raise the same issue as discussed with respect to claim 18. Claim 23, is
similar in scope to claim 18 in that it recites recording web content and
broadcast video. Claim 23 also recites associating the two recordings. As
discussed with respect to claim 18, we find ample evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that both a television program (broadcast content) and
web content associated with the television program are recorded for later
use. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.

7

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

Claim 24
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 24 on page 10 of the Brief,
raise the same issue discussed above with respect to claim 20, in that
Appellant argues that Blackketter does not teach initiating playback of both
recordings. We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. Claim 24 is
dependent upon claim 23 and further recites initiating playback of both the
recorded broadcast video and the associated web content. As discussed with
respect to claim 20 we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that Blackketter teaches these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Claims 1, 4, 6 and 7
Appellant’s arguments on page 10 of the Brief group claims 1, 4, 6
and 7 together and assert that the Examiner erred in finding that Blackketter
teaches concurrently recording both video and web content upon receipt of a
command from a user as claimed. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims. Claim 1 is similar to claim 18 in that
it recites storing the television program and downloaded web content in
response to a request to record a television program. As discussed supra
with respect to claim 18, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that Blackketter teaches this feature. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 18.
8

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

Claims 2, 3, and 5
Appellant’s arguments on page 11 of the Brief group claims 2, 3, and
5 together and assert that the Examiner erred in finding that Blackketter
teaches playing both video and web content upon receipt of a command
from a user as claimed. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims. We select claim 2 as representative of
the group of claims. Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 and is similar to
claim 20 in that it recites playing the stored television program and web
content in response to a request. As discussed supra with respect to claim
20, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that
Blackketter teaches this feature. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 20.

Claims 8 and 10 through 12
Appellant’s arguments on page 11 of the Brief group claims 8 and 10
through 12 together and assert that the Examiner erred in finding that
Blackketter teaches recording and playing both video and web content upon
receipt of a command from a user as claimed. Appellant has not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. We select claim 8 as
representative of the group of claims. Claim 8 recites steps of storing a
television program web content associated with the program similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 18. Claim 8 also recites steps of playing
back the broadcast and web content concurrently similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 20. As discussed supra with respect to claims 18 and
20, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that
9

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

Blackketter teaches these features. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 and 10 through 12 for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claims 18 and 20.

Claim 19
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 19, on page 12 of the Brief
apply the same reasoning as discussed with respect to claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 18.

Claims 25 and 26
Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 25 and 26, on page 12 of the
Brief apply the same reasoning as discussed with respect to claim 23.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 and 26 for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 23.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 8, 10 through
12, and 18 through 26 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).

10

Appeal 2008-4968
Application 09/874,421

AFFIRMED

Eld

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
11