Ex Parte Segel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11967432 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111967,432 12/31/2007
46363 7590 07/01/2016
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan Segel
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.
LCNT/801762 6959
EXAMINER
BHARGA VA, ANIL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
docketing@trbklaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN SEGEL
Appeal2014-009328
Application 11/967 ,432
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 21--41. Claims 2-20 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-009328
Application 11/967,432
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
presentation of content at an end user terminal including creating a content
schedule, and determining content presentation control information using the
content schedule. (Abstract) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
using a processor and a memory for:
receiving information configured for use in generating a
content schedule for an end user terminal, the received
information associated with a set of content items available for
presentation at the end user terminal, the received information
comprising, for each of the content items available for
presentation at the end user terminal, a respective set of content
characteristics for the content item, wherein, for at least one of
the content items, the respective set of content characteristics
comprises a distribution mode characteristic indicative of at
least one distribution mode available for distribution of the
respective content item to the end user terminal and a time
characteristic indicative as to whether the respective content
item is time-dependent or time-independent;
generating a content schedule for the end user terminal
based on the received information for use in generating the
content schedule, the content schedule identifying a plurality of
content items scheduled for presentation at the end user
terminal, the content schedule comprising a scheduling order
indicative of an order in which content items are scheduled to
be presented at the end user terminal; and
determining content presentation control information
based on the content schedule, the content presentation control
information configured for use in controlling presentation at the
end user terminal of the content items identified in the content
schedule.
2
Appeal2014-009328
Application 11/967,432
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 21--41under35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Yee et al. (US 2008/0320516 Al, pub. Dec.
25, 2008). (Final Act. 2-12.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether Yee discloses generating a content schedule based on a
distribution mode characteristic indicative of a distribution mode available
for distribution of a content item, as required by independent claims 1, 40,
and 41. (App. Br. 14--19.)
ANALYSIS
In finding Yee discloses the limitations of the independent claims, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Yee of establishing a "personalized
content channel" based on a schedule provided by the owner or other
"content manager" with varying content that can be delivered in various
distribution modes including broadcast, subscriber content, or from local
media such as DVD. (Final Act.2--4; Yee Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 4, i-fi-16-9, 26-
28, 36, 45--46.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jul. 1, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Aug. 26, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 23, 2014); and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jul. 31, 2014) forthe respective details.
3
Appeal2014-009328
Application 11/967,432
Appellant argues Yee does not disclose the required generation of a
content schedule based on a distribution mode:
The cited portions of Yee, however, although disclosing a
content schedule and a content channel that may be used to
serve content based on the content schedule, are devoid of any
teaching or suggestion that the content schedule is generated
based on distribution mode information associated with a
content item.
(App. Br. 14.)
In response, the Examiner cites portions of Yee disclosing obtaining
content for the channel schedule from various sources spanning different
broadcast modes, but does not point to any disclosure in Yee that generates
a schedule based on broadcast mode. (Ans. 3-5.) The only disclosure in
Yee of schedule generation states:
The content schedule 110 is typically supplied by the content
manager 112, which can be an owner, maintainer,
administrator, rights holder, etc. of the content channel l 02.
(Yee i-f 29.) The Examiner does not point to disclosure in Yee, or otherwise
persuasively counter, Appellant's arguments. Therefore, on the record
before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claims 1, 40, and 41.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 40, and 41 over Yee. We also do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 21-39 over Yee, which claims
depend from claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-009328
Application 11/967,432
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 21--41 is reversed.
REVERSED
5