Ex Parte LYNCH

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2010

09475448 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

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.
09/475,448 12/30/1999 David Johnston LYNCH RCA-89-385 6337
24498 7590 09/22/2010
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
P.O. Box 5312
Princeton, NJ 08543-5312
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID JOHNSTON LYNCH
____________________

Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,4481
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Thomson Licensing S.A.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 10-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to a video processing system having a
ratings control system that may be temporarily revised to permit specific
programs to be viewed. The rating control system enables a supervisor to
block or permit viewing of programs which are broadcast with ratings or
spending limits according to a password-protected profile set by a supervisor
who has entered a password. In the alternative, the rating control system
enables the supervisor to change the ratings control range or temporarily
override blocking. At the end of the temporary period or completion of the
specific programs permitted by the supervisor, the system automatically
restores the normal ratings and/or spending limit for the selected profile(s).
The system comprises a means for the supervisor who has entered the
password accepted by the control system to enter (i) one or more specific
broadcast programs to be unblocked, (ii) one or more channels to be
unblocked for one or more specific time periods, (iii) a revised ratings
profile for a specific time period, or (iv) a revised spending limit. (Abstract;
Spec. 4:14-5:13)
Claim 10 is exemplary:
10. A system comprising:
a video signal processor for producing an output signal suitable for
coupling to a display device to produce a plurality of images for display to at
least one viewer;
a supervisor control system operable by a supervisor to create at least
one viewer profile identifying images to be blocked from display to said at
least one viewer;
2
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

said supervisor control system operable by said supervisor to select a
specific program having a rating above a set rating for blocking programs
applicable to said viewer profile such that said select program is unblocked
for the duration of the program while the other of said plurality of images for
display are blocked according to said viewer profile, whereby upon
completion of said selected specific program, said supervisor control system
identifies images to be blocked according to said at least one viewer profile.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
West US 5,550,575 Aug. 27, 1996
Collings US 5,828,402 Oct. 27, 1998
Abecassis US 6,091,886 Jul. 18, 2000
Sullivan US 2004/0040034 A1 Feb. 26, 2004

Claims 10, 11, 13, 21, 23-25, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Abecassis.
Claims 12, 14-17, 19, 22, 24-26, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abecassis in view of Collings. 3
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abecassis in view of West.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abecassis in view of Collings and Sullivan.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed February 11, 2008) and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 16, 2008), for their respective details.

3 The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abecassis in view of Collings; yet neither the Appeal
Brief nor the Answer lists the rejection of claim 22 in the “Grounds of
Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal” (Ans. 2, Ans. 7 and App. Br. 6).
3
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

ISSUE
Appellant contends that although Abecassis may allow blocking of
segments of programs not suitable for children, Abecassis is not concerned
with “select[ing] a specific program having a rating above a set rating for
blocking programs” and unblocking the selected program “for the duration
of the program while other of said plurality of images for display are
blocked according to said viewer profile" as recited in independent claims
10 and 23 (App. Br. 12-13 and 15). Appellant asserts that none of the
references are concerned with unblocking a single selected program having a
rating above the set rating scheme while still blocking all other images
according to the set blocking scheme (App. Br. 20, 25, and 28).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Abecassis teach a “supervisor control system operable by said
supervisor to select a specific program having a rating above a set rating for
blocking programs applicable to said viewer profile such that said select
program is unblocked for the duration of the program while the other of said
plurality of images for display are blocked according to said viewer profile,
whereby upon completion of said selected specific program, said supervisor
control system identifies images to be blocked according to said at least one
viewer profile”?

4
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Abecassis
1. Abecassis discloses a method and fully integrated viewing/
gaming/computing video system (Random Access Video Technology system
(RAViT)) for a user to restrict time and videos or versions of videos that
may be viewed by a viewer. The video or version of the video may be
restricted by content category, a level within the content category or a level
of explicitness in each of a plurality of content categories. A random access
and buffering means 514 is used to retrieve segments of a video, to buffer at
least a portion of a segment of a video and seamlessly skip a retrieval of at
least one segment of the video to enable playing of a seamless version of the
video having less length than the length of the original version of the video.
(Fig. 5; Abstract; col. 11, ll. 11-24; col. 12, ll. 13-19 and 47-51).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Obviousness
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
5
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claims 10, 11, 13, 21, 23-25, 27 and 29
Independent claim 10 recites “supervisor control system operable by
said supervisor to select a specific program having a rating above a set rating
for blocking programs applicable to said viewer profile such that said select
program is unblocked for the duration of the program while the other of said
plurality of images for display are blocked according to said viewer profile.”
Independent claim 23 recites a claim limitation similar in scope.
We consider Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Abecassis discloses a supervisor control system that identifies programs to
be blocked according to the at least one viewer profile (Ans. 3-4). Abecassis
discloses a method and system for a user to restrict time and videos or
versions of videos that may be viewed by a viewer (FF 1). The video or
version of the video maybe restricted by content category, a level within the
content category or a level of explicitness in each of a plurality of content
categories (FF 1). A random access and buffering means are used to retrieve
segments of a video, to buffer at least a portion of a segment of a video and
seamlessly skip a retrieval of at least one segment of the video to enable
playing of a seamless version of the video having less length than the length
of the original version of the video (FF 1). Abecassis is silent as to an
6
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

override feature that enables a supervisor to edit a viewer profile such that a
selected program that would normally be blocked due to its rating may be
unblocked and, at the end of the program, the original viewer profile
resumes blocking programs as designated.
Therefore, we find that Abecassis does not disclose a “supervisor
control system operable by said supervisor to select a specific program
having a rating above a set rating for blocking programs applicable to said
viewer profile such that said select program is unblocked for the duration of
the program while the other of said plurality of images for display are
blocked according to said viewer profile, whereby upon completion of said
selected specific program, said supervisor control system identifies images
to be blocked according to said at least one viewer profile.” As a result, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claims 10 and
23 and that of dependent claims 11, 13, 21, 24-25, 27, and 29.
Claims 12, 14-20, 22, 24-26 and 28
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 10 and 23 from
which claims 12, 14-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 depend. We have reviewed
Collings, West, and Sullivan (the additional references applied by the
Examiner to reject these claims), and find that none of the cited references
teaches the limitations deemed to be absent from Abecassis.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 14-20,
22, 24-26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed
with respect to the rejection of parent claims 10 and 23, supra.
7
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

CONCLUSION
Abecassis does not teach a “supervisor control system operable by
said supervisor to select a specific program having a rating above a set rating
for blocking programs applicable to said viewer profile such that said select
program is unblocked for the duration of the program while the other of said
plurality of images for display are blocked according to said viewer profile,
whereby upon completion of said selected specific program, said supervisor
control system identifies images to be blocked according to said at least one
viewer profile.”

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-29 is reversed.

8
Appeal 2009-007862
Application 09/475,448

REVERSED

ELD

ROBERT D. SHEDD, PATENT OPERATIONS
THOMSON LICENSING LLC
P.O. BOX 5312
PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312
9