Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13444947 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/444,947 04/12/2012
80878 7590
Brown & Michaels (END)
c/o Brown & Michaels, PC
118 North Tioga Street
Suite 400
Ithaca, NY 14850
07/13/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian M. O'CONNELL
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AUS920060227US3 1064
EXAMINER
IMMANUEL, ISIDORA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@bpmlegal.com
lwood@bpmlegal.com
twood@bpmlegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN M. O'CONNELL and KEITH R. WALKER
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,94 7
Technology Center 3600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EV ANS, and SCOTT B.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-20. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation, as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January. 20, 2016, "App. Br."); the Reply
Brief (filed October 11, 2016, "Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer (mailed
August 15, 2016, "Ans."); the Final Action (mailed June 8, 2015, "Final
Act."); and the Specification (filed April 12, 2012, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The claims relate to a method of determining user interactions with a
set-top box. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method for detecting fraudulent user interactions with
a set-top box, the method comprising the steps of:
a processor receiving user interaction data indicative of
interactions between a user and a set-top box device;
the processor comparing a behavior pattern in the
received user interaction data and a behavior pattern in
previously stored data contained within a user profile for a
human, wherein the behavioral pattern is associated with
remote control usage of a set-top box;
the processor generating a score indicative of a likelihood
that the behavior pattern in the received data matches the
behavior pattern in the previously stored data; and
responsive to the generated score being below a
threshold, the processor generating an indication of a possible
fraudulent action due to the user having a high likelihood of not
being the human.
Talmor, et al.,
("Talmor")
Colvin
Dua
Tiliks, et al.,
("Tiliks")
References and Rejections
US 6,510,415 Bl
US 6,813,718 B2
US 2007/0180485 Al
US 2007/0206741 Al
2
Jan. 21, 2003
Nov. 2, 2004
Aug.2,2007
Sep. 6,2007
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) or
112 second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 5---6.
2. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Colvin. Final Act. 6-7.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9--11, 13-16,3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Tiliks. Final Act. 7-9.
4. Claims 2, 4, 12, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tiliks and Talmor. Final Act. 9--11.
5. Claims 5, 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tiliks, Talmor, and Dua. Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief
and the Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112. We adopt as our
3 Claim 16 is not mentioned in the heading of the rejection (see Final Act.
7), but is discussed in the body of the rejection (see Final Act. 7). We find
this failure to be harmless error.
3
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
Brief. See App. Br. 5-18.
CLAIMS 2, 3, 5, 17, AND 20: INDEFINITENESS.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia, "the
processor receiving a request from the user for a privileged operation." The
Examiner finds neither the claims nor the Specification defines the term
"privileged" as used in claims 2, 3, 17, and 20, nor the term "idiosyncratic"
as used in claims 6 and 18. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds the recitations
to be of undefined, relational terms, which, as such render the claims
indefinite. Id.
Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the
term "privileged" refers "to an operation that some users are able to
peiform and others are not, due to an authorization being required." App.
Br. 5---6. Appellants refer to the Specification, paragraph 14, for a definition
of privileged. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds the Specification does not define a privileged
operation, but rather defines who may be authorized to perform a privileged
operation. Ans. 9-10.
Appellants do not reply to this aspect of the Answer. See Reply Br.
(unpaginated).
The Specification discloses, inter alia:
4
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
In embodiments of the present invention, behavior patterns in
user interaction data can be compared to behavioral patterns in
a user profile of a human authorized to cause a privileged
operation to be performed on the set-top box.
Spec. ,r 14 ( emphasis added). The Specification thus discloses that some
users may be authorized to perform a privileged operation, but fails to
disclose a definition for a privileged operation.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
CLAIMS 16-20: ANTICIPATION BY COLVIN
The Examiner's Answer does not maintain this rejection. See Final
Act. 6; see also App. Br. 7-8. We find this rejection has been withdrawn
and so decline to reach the merits therein because any rejection not repeated
and discussed in the answer may be taken by the Board as having been
withdrawn. Ex Parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd. App. 1957).
CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13-16, AND 19: ANTICIPATION BY TILIKS
User interactions with the set-top box
Appellants contend Tiliks teaches a method of monitoring network
activity (App. Br. 11 ), but Tiliks does not teach receiving user interaction
data indicative of interactions between a user and a set-top box device, as
substantially recited in independent claims 1 and 19. Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds Tiliks teaches receiving user interaction data
indicative of interactions between a user and a set-top box device. Ans. 4
(citing Tiliks, ,r,r 10, 13, 14, and 21).
Appellants contend Tiliks teaches that one may monitor how the set-
top box is used with the network (e.g., what shows are being watched or how
5
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
often they are watched), but Tiliks fails to teach how the user interacts with
the set-top box. Reply Br. 4. 4
Tiliks discloses:
A method in a communication device can include the steps of
sharing behavioral information associated with an end user of
the communication device with an activity notification system
(ANS) that detects anomalous changes in the behavioral
information.
Tiliks ,r 10 (cited by the Examiner, e.g., Final Act. 3, 7).
The communication devices can represent any number of
embodiments including ... a television set with an associated
IPTV-capable set top box.
Tiliks ,r 13 (cited by the Examiner, e.g., Final Act. 3, 7).
Method 200 begins with step 202 where the controller 104 of
the ANS 102 monitors network activities associated the
communication devices 108. The network activities originate in
part from the end user's interactions with the communication
devices.
Tiliks ,r 21 (cited by the Examiner, e.g., Final Act. 3, 7).
We find Tiliks' disclosure fairly teaches receiving user interaction
data indicative of interactions between a user and a set-top box device, as
claimed in independent claims 1 and 19.
Comparison to previously-stored behavior
Appellants contend Tiliks fails to teach comparing a behavior pattern
regarding remote control usage of set-top box to a previously-stored
behavior pattern. App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds this limitation is in the
4 The Reply Brief is unpaginated. We refer to page 11 of the electronic
record.
6
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
prior art. Ans. 4 (citing Tiliks ,r,r 10, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 34, Figures 1, and
3). Appellants' Reply Brief does not discuss this aspect. We are not
persuaded the Examiner errs.
CLAIMS 2, 4, 12, 17, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER TILIKS AND TALMOR
Appellants contend the claims are patentable over Tiliks and
Talmor, individually and in combination, for the reasons given in respect to
the section 102 rejections of independent claims 1 and 19 and repeat their
prior arguments as to novelty. App. Br. 13. For the reasons discussed above
addressing anticipation by Tiliks, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
CLAIMS 5, 7, 8, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER TILIKS, TALMOR, AND DUA
Appellants contend the claims are patentable over Tiliks, Talmor, and Dua
individually and in combination, for the reasons set forth in respect to the
section 102 rejection of claim 1, and repeat their arguments as to the novelty
of claim 1. App. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is
affirmed.
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, 9--11, 13-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) is affirmed.
The rejection of Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
7
Appeal2017-000677
Application 13/444,947
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8