Ex Parte Roberts et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2017

13116784 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 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.
13/116,784 05/26/2011 Brian F. Roberts 20110021 6212
7590 06/09/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN F. ROBERTS, ANTHONY M. LEMUS,
MICHAEL D’ARGENIO, and DONALD H. RELYEA
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—13 and 15—21, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to “targeted
advertisement methods and systems.” Spec. 110.2 The Specification
explains that an exemplary method includes “presenting a media content
program comprising an advertisement break, detecting an ambient action
performed by a user during the presentation of the media content program,
selecting an advertisement associated with the detected ambient action, and
presenting the selected advertisement during the advertisement break.”
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
storing, by a media content presentation system, a
reference table that associates ambient actions with keywords;
presenting, by the media content presentation system,
a media content program comprising an advertisement break
via a media content access device;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed May 26, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed January 14, 2016; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
April 12, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed May 31, 2016; “Ans.”
for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 25, 2016; and “Reply Br.” for the
Reply Brief, filed October 12, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
detecting, by the media content presentation system
subsequent to the storing of the reference table, an ambient
action that is not directed at the media content access device
and that is performed by a user during the presentation of the
media content program and within a detection zone associated
with the media content presentation system;
determining, by the media content presentation system, a
keyword associated with the detected ambient action by
accessing the stored reference table that associates ambient
actions with keywords;
searching, by the media content presentation system, data
associated with a plurality of advertisements for the keyword
associated with the detected ambient action;
selecting, by the media content presentation system based
on the searching, an advertisement included in the plurality of
advertisements and that has data that matches the keyword
associated with the detected ambient action; and
presenting, by the media content presentation system, the
selected advertisement during the advertisement break.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Eyer et al. (“Eyer”)
Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”)
Dimitrova et al. (“Dimitrova
Beser et al. (“Beser”)
Hildreth
Neufeld et al. (“Neufeld”)
Begeja et al. (“Begeja”)
de Heer
US 2002/0124253 Al
US 2003/0078919 Al
”) US 2003/0093784 Al
US 2009/0025024 Al
US 2009/0133051 Al
US 2010/0076828 Al
US 8,037,496 B1
US 8,082,179 B2
Sept. 5, 2002
Apr. 24, 2003
May 15,2003
Jan. 22, 2009
May 21,2009
Mar. 25, 2010
Oct. 11,2011
(filed Dec. 27, 2002)
Dec. 20, 2011
(filed Nov. 1,2007)
3
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
Small et al. (“Small”) US 2012/0124604 A1 May 17, 2012
(filed Nov. 12, 2010)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 16—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beser, Small, Begeja, and Suzuki. Final Act.
2-6.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beser, Small, Begeja, Suzuki, and Dimitrova. Final Act.
6-7.
Claims 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Beser, Small, Begeja, Suzuki, and de Heer. Final Act. 7—8.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Beser, Small, Begeja, Suzuki, and Eyer. Final Act. 8.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Beser, Small, Begeja, Suzuki, and Hildreth. Final Act. 9.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Beser, Small, Begeja, Suzuki, and Neufeld. Final Act. 9—10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—13 and 15—21 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the
Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2—10), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2—3).
We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and
arguments.
4
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
The Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12,
and 16—21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
“Reference Table That Associates Ambient Actions with Keywords”
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the references do not teach or suggest the “reference table that associates
ambient actions with keywords” required by claim 1. App. Br. 10—14; Reply
Br. 5—8. Based on the asserted absence of the claimed “reference table,”
Appellants argue that the references do not teach or suggest claim 1 ’s
storing, detecting, and determining steps. App. Br. 10-15; see Reply
Br. 5—10. Appellants note that the Examiner cites Suzuki’s sensitivity table,
which shows correlations between “retrieve keywords” and “feature words.”
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4—5; see Final Act. 4 (citing Suzuki 1122,
Abstract); see also Suzuki Fig. 2(a). Appellants then argue that: (1) a
“retrieve keyword” represents a “unique category of music to be retrieved”;
(2) a “feature word” represents an element, characteristic, or feature “that
a particular music piece may have”; and (3) the feature words “describe
and represent only music or other information content” and “clearly do not
constitute ambient actions that may be performed by a user.” App.
Br. 10-13.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner explains that the combination of references teaches the disputed
limitations. Ans. 2. Further, the Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses
detecting an “atmosphere” and then retrieving a particular keyword
depending on the particular “atmosphere” detected. Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Suzuki | 63). More specifically, Suzuki discloses detecting “an atmosphere
of a user” based on, among other things, a “silence,” a “laughing voice,”
5
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
a “quarrel voice,” or a conversation’s content. Suzuki | 63. After detecting
“an atmosphere of a user,” a retrieve means obtains a “retrieve keyword”
related to the atmosphere detected from among a “plurality of retrieve
keywords.” Id. Suzuki explains that “this retrieving operation may be
carried out with reference to a correspondence table between plural sorts of
preset atmospheres and retrieve keywords.” Id. The correspondence table
between preset atmospheres and retrieve keywords corresponds to the
“reference table that associates ambient actions with keywords” required by
claim 1. Because the correspondence table contains “preset” values, it is
stored and subsequently used to determine a particular “retrieve keyword”
related to the particular atmosphere detected. See id. For example, a
detected atmosphere of “silence” results in retrieval of the “retrieve
keyword” for “telling music piece.” Id.
Appellants assert that “an ‘atmosphere’ is not an ‘ambient action,’ as
recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 13. The Specification explains, however, that
an “ambient action” includes “the user eating, exercising, laughing, reading,
sleeping, talking, singing, humming, cleaning, playing a musical instrument,
performing any other suitable action, and/or engaging in any other physical
activity during the presentation of the media content.” Spec. 116.
Consistent with the Specification, Suzuki explains that “an atmosphere of
a user” includes a “laughing voice.” Suzuki 1 63.
Appellants contend that “[njothing in paragraph 0063 teaches or
suggests that the sensitivity table associates ‘a silence, laughing voice,
quarrel voice, a conversation content’ with a keyword.” App. Br. 13 (citing
Suzuki 1 63). That contention confuses the “correspondence table”
discussed in paragraph 63 with the “sensitivity table” discussed in other
6
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
paragraphs and shown in Figure 2(a). See, e.g., Suzuki || 14, 15, 25, 113,
116, 125, Fig. 2(a).
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Beser, Small, Begeja, and Suzuki. Hence, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
Independent Claims 17 and 19 and
Dependent Claims 3,4, 8,11,12,16,18,20, and 21
Appellants assert that independent claims 17 and 19 are patentable
over the references for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 15—16; Reply
Br. 10. Appellants similarly assert that dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16,
18, 20, and 21 are patentable over the references for the same reasons as
claim 1. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 10. Appellants do not make any separate
patentability arguments for any of these claims. App. Br. 15—16; Reply
Br. 10. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 16—21 for the same
reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejections of Claims 2, 5—7, 9,
10, 13, and 15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As with the other dependent claims, Appellants do not make any
separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 2, 5—7, 9, 10, 13,
and 15. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 10. Because Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5—7, 9,
10, 13, and 15 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2017-000931
Application 13/116,784
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13 and 15—21.
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).
AFFIRMED
8