Ex Parte Praden

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13508021 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
13/508,021 09/17/2012 Anne-marie Praden 1032326-000574 9621
21839 7590 12/13/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
DOSHI, AKSHAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNE-MARIE PRADEN
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,0211
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Gemalto SA as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed June 12, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed January 14, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 19, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action, mailed December 9, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 8—10 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A method for controlling an audience measurement
relating to broadcast data, wherein the method comprises the
following steps:
sending, from a server to at least one device, within the
broadcast data, at least one piece of information identifying
content data that is broadcast for which an execution of an
audience measurement is not allowed; and
stopping, by the device, an audience measurement of the
content data identified by the at least one piece of information
sent from the server.
Claims 1—4 and 6—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Houston and Revital. Final Act. 5—16.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Houston, Revital, and Lo. Final Act. 16—17.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3 and 8—10
Appellant contends “Houston does not teach a ‘piece of information
identifying content data that is broadcast,’ let alone to disallow audience
References
Revital et al.
Houston
Lo et al.
US 2004/0101138 Al
US 2008/0103978 Al
US 2009/0254930 Al
May 27, 2004
May 1,2008
Oct. 8, 2009
Examiner’s Rejections
2
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
measurement for the identified content.” App. Br. 6. According to
Appellant, paragraph 42 of Houston, which the Examiner relies upon in
rejecting claim 1, “discloses only that the MRA [measurement rights
agreement] may include rules descriptive of ‘the scope of media content to
be measuredApp. Br. 6. Appellant argues that Houston “does not
provide the ability to disallow audience measurement on a program-by­
program basis.” App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Houston describes that a
“measurement rights agreement 165 may include any or all of the following
business rules: ... a description of the scope of media content to be
measured (e.g., such as a description of the type of content, products and/or
services measured and/or excluded from measurement, etc.).” Houston 142
(emphasis added). Houston further teaches that the media content whose
consumption is to be measured or not measured is “content data that is
broadcast,” as recited in claim 1, when it describes that a “another media
content source 125 may correspond to a broadcast media source, such as, for
example, a cable television service provider, a satellite television service
provider, a terrestrial television service provider, a broadcast radio provider,
a satellite radio provider, a cellular phone television provider, etc.” Houston
125. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Houston teaches
identifying broadcast content for which audience measurement is not
allowed. See Final Act. 6. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require
disallowing measurement “on a program-by-program basis,” and, therefore,
Appellant’s argument that Houston does not teach this feature is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
3
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
Appellant also contends “[t]he key that is transmitted in Revital does
not identify content data, much less content data that is broadcast for which
an execution of an audience measurement is not allowed.” App. Br. 8.
However, as the Examiner explains, “Revital is only being used to teach the
step of transmission of piece of information from server to client device
transmitted within the broadcast data.” Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 6—7. As
such, this argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings and
therefore not persuasive of error.
Appellant further contends that the combination of Revital and
Houston is improper and would not result in the method of claim 1. See
App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellant argues that the
measurement rights agreement (MRA) of Houston is user specific and,
therefore, there would be no reason to broadcast the MRA and further that
doing so would render Houston unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
App. Br. 8—10. According to Appellant, “the MRA 165 of Houston is not
relevant to more than one user device,'1'’ and, “[t]hus, one skilled in the art
would never seek to broadcast the individual contract of a single user to a
plurality of user devices.” Reply Br. 3.
As an initial matter, we note that claim 1 recites “sending, from a
server to at least one device, within the broadcast data, at least one piece of
information.” Claim 1 does not recite a step of broadcasting information, let
alone broadcasting to a plurality of devices, as Appellant’s argument
suggests. See Spec. 2:22—23 (“The broadcast data is to be received by at
least one terminal.”). Furthermore, although a measurement rights
agreement may be user specific, as Appellant argues, Houston also describes
a “default measurement rights agreement” that is provided to audience
4
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
members. See Houston || 54, 80. Such a “default” MRA would not be
specific to any particular user, and broadcasting such information would
have involved nothing more than applying a known technique (broadcasting
information) to the method of Houston to yield predictable results, as
determined by the Examiner. Ans. 9-10; see KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). Therefore, Appellant’s arguments against the
combination based on the premise that Houston discloses only user-specific
agreements are not persuasive, particularly in light of Houston’s disclosure
of default MRAs that are not user-specific.
We further note that claim 1 does not require that the “at least one
piece of information identifying content data that is broadcast” also specify
whether or not audience measurement is allowed with respect to that
content. The decision that audience measurement is not allowed with
respect to particular content that is identified may be based on different
information entirely. Houston discloses that media content may come from
a broadcast media source, and it discloses “information (e.g., such as
identification tags, metadata, etc.) embedded in the media content.”
Houston || 25, 28. Thus, Houston teaches broadcast data that includes
information that identifies content. Houston further discloses a
measurement rights agreement having business rules under which certain
content is “excluded from measurement.” Houston 142. Houston describes
a process for determining whether to authorize audience measurement,
which involves “evaluating] the business rules (terms) contained in the
measurement rights agreement 165,” and, if measurement is not authorized,
5
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
“ensuring] that the cooperative media handler 150 is configured in a non-
cooperative mode, thereby disabling audience measurement.” Houston | 87,
Fig. 7. This further supports the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 as obvious over Houston and Revital because Houston teaches
identifying media content that is broadcast and determining, by reference to
business rules, that audience measurement of the identified content is not
allowed and stopping audience measurement.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
claim 1 would have been obvious based on Houston and Revital. As such,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as the
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 8—10, for which Appellant presents no
additional arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 10.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the at least one piece
of information is included within a specific message that is timely linked to
the identified content data.” The Examiner finds that Houston’s disclosure
of checking a measurement rights agreement when a user selects particular
content to display teaches a timely linkage between identified content data
and the MRA information (“the at least one piece of information”).
Ans. 11—12 (citing Houston || 32, 42, 50, 83—87, Figs. 1, 7).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is
inconsistent with the rejection of claim 1 because
if the MRA 165 of Houston were for some reason to be sent
within broadcast data, as suggested by the Examiner in the
rejection of claim 1, the process described in paragraphs [0083]-
[0087] of Houston cannot occur, as it is dependent upon the
6
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
DRM 160 controlling the retrieval of the MRA 165 in response
to a triggering event.
Reply Br. 4—5.
However, the Examiner relies on Houston’s disclosure of accessing a
locally stored measurement rights agreement. Ans. 11—12 (citing Houston
83—87, Fig. 7). Houston discloses “the measurement rights agreement
165 may be stored locally in a storage unit 175 accessible by the cooperative
DRM 160.” Houston 1 84. A locally stored measurement rights agreement
would have been sent earlier within broadcast data, according to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on the combination of Houston and
Revital. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is not inconsistent with
the rejection of claim 1.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the subject
matter of claim 4 would have been obvious over Houston and Revital, and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
Method according to claim 1, wherein, a first value of one piece
of information is predetermined to not allow an execution of an
audience measurement relating to the identified content data, and
when a value of the piece of information matches the
predetermined first value, the device does not execute an
audience measurement relating to the identified content data.
Appellant argues that the relied-upon portions of Houston describe
disabling all audience measurement and that “[sjuch a blanket disablement
of audience measurement is not an identification of content data.” App. Br.
11—12 (citing Houston | 86). We are not persuaded because disabling
audience measurement for all content teaches that the device will “not
7
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
execute an audience measurement relating to the identified content data,” as
required by claim 6. As the Examiner correctly points out, the “current
claim language of claim 6 does not indicate that measurement is only
disabled for identified content and audience measurement for unidentified or
other content continues.” Ans. 13. Furthermore, even if the claim were so
limited, the Examiner correctly finds that “Houston discloses measuring] or
excluding] specific content type from audience measurement based on rules
as disclosed in par. 0042.” Ans. 13.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the
subject matter of claim 6 would have been obvious over Houston and
Revital, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the server inserts
within data to be broadcast the at least one piece of information.” Appellant
argues “[t]he audience measurement of Houston is based upon information
provided in the MRA 165 which is not broadcast,” and, therefore, “Houston
does not teach or suggest the recitation of Claim 7.” App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner explains that Revital discloses sending
control information within broadcast data, therefore, it is the combination of
Houston and Revital that teaches the subject matter of claim 7. Ans. 13
(citing Houston 132; Revital 1109, Fig. 2). Appellant’s argument against
Houston alone does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection
based on the combination of references. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal 2016-002810
Application 13/508,021
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the at least one piece
of information is included within a Short Term Key Message.” Appellant
argues “Lo does not cure the deficiencies of Houston and Revital” because
“the portion of Lo interpreted by the Office as the Appellant’s recited ‘piece
of information,’ relates to the decryption and display of content to a user, not
the disablement of an audience measurement.” App. Br. 12. This argument
is not persuasive because, as the Examiner points out, the combination of
Houston and Revital teaches audience measurement, and Lo is relied upon
only for teaching sending a piece of information via a short term key
message. Ans. 14.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the
subject matter of claim 5 would have been obvious over Houston, Revital,
and Lo, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9