Ex Parte Sezan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10906754 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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.
10/906,754 03/04/2005 M. Ibrahim SEZAN SLA1590 (7146.0393) 3754
55648 7590 02/27/2013
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte M. IBRAHIM SEZAN, GEORGE ROME BORDEN,
GARY A. FEATHER, and MICK GROVER1
____________________

Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
rejection of claims 27-46. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1-26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to presence information systems, in
particular, to a system and a method for presenting, to a user, concurrent-
content-consumption information of a community of users. Spec. p. 1,
¶ [0003].
Exemplary Claims
Claim 27 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
27. A computer-implemented method for informing a
first user of desirable programming content based on current
programming viewing of a plurality of other users, said method
comprising:
(a) determining respective instances of said current
programming being currently viewed by each of said plurality
of other users, where said current programming includes at least
two different programs and where each of said plurality of other
users is viewing said current programming at a location remote
from said first user;
(b) displaying on a display device of said first user a
filtered list of identities of individual ones of said plurality of
other users who are currently viewing said current
programming, said list filtered automatically based on
respective permission profiles of each of said plurality of
different users;

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Oct. 22, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 18, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 20, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
June 24, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 4, 2005).
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

3
(c) displaying on a display device of said first user a
list of said current programming being currently viewed by said
plurality of other users; and
(d) filtering said current programming being said
currently viewed by said plurality of other users to provide a
recommendation for said desirable programming content to said
first user, said filtering being performed automatically, and
based on user stored programming content data in said
permission profile, where filtering of said current
programming and filtering of said list of identities of
individual users are not mutually determinative of each other.
Claim 41 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
41. A user description scheme stored on a computer-
readable storage medium and operatively interconnected to a
processor capable of driving a display device, said user
description scheme comprising:
(a) an electronically stored user preference profile for
a first user including preference data indicative of persistent,
prospective semantic content preferences of said first user, said
first user profile used by said processor to automatically
identify selective available programming content of likely
interest to said first user;
(b) an electronically stored usage history profile for a
second user indicative of historical semantic content
preferences of said second user, said second user different
than said first user and viewing content at a location remote
from said first user, said usage history profile used by said
processor to modify said first preference data.

Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

4
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Jacobi US 6,064,980 May 16, 2000
Herz US 6,088,722 Jul. 11, 2000
Luzzatti US 6,714,519 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
Cooper US 6,754,904 B1 June 22, 2004
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 41-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Herz. Ans. 3.
2. Claims 27-33 and 38-403 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cooper, Jacobi and
Herz. Ans. 5-6.
3. Claims 34-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cooper and Jacobi in view of Luzzatti. Ans. 10.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claims 27-46, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this

3 We note that the Final Office Action (FOA 5) and the Answer (Ans. 5-6)
includes a typographical error indicating that claims 41-46 are also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). A review of the rejection itself, however shows
that claims 41-46 are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Herz.
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

5
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims
27 and 41 for emphasis as follows.
1. Rejection of Claims 41-46
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 4-7) that the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Herz is in
error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellants’ claimed user
description scheme stored on a computer-readable storage
medium and operatively interconnected to a processor capable
of driving a display device is anticipated by Herz, particularly
that Herz discloses, inter alia, “an electronically stored usage
history profile for a second user indicative of historical
semantic content preferences of said second user, said second
user different than said first user and viewing content at a
location remote from said first user, said usage history profile
used by said processor to modify said first preference data,” as
recited in claim 41?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Herz discloses “an
electronically stored usage history profile for a second user indicative of
historical semantic content preferences of said second user, said second user
different than said first user and viewing content at a location remote from
said first user, said usage history profile used by said processor to modify
said first preference data,” as recited in claim 41. Ans. 3-4 and 13-14.
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

6
Appellants admit that “[t]he programming information to which a
current preference profile is matched has nothing to do with limitation (b) of
claim 41 - it has to do with limitation (a), which the applicant does not
dispute is disclosed by Herz.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants contend that:
The Examiner needs to find a disclosure in Herz that suggests
modifying the profile itself, to which incoming programming is
compared, and not cite a disclosure that incoming programming
choices are modified or filtered by an existing customer profile.
The Examiner has cited no such disclosure. The closest the
Examiner has come to this requirement is a disclosure of
“default” profiles based on demographic information that may
be initially used to generate a user profile.
App. Br. 6 (emphasis in original). We disagree with Appellants’
contentions, and agree with the Examiner’s findings in this regard.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
[A] customer can have his profile modified by adopting the
customer profiles of other individuals or programs such as
‘celebrity’ profiles including the viewing preferences of
different celebrities. By adopting the content and viewer
programming geared to particular “celebrities”, the customer
can modify his or her own profile by assuming those virtual
channels. As stated, “. . . each customer can adopt the customer
profiles of other individuals or programs such as “celebrity”
profiles including the viewing preferences of different
celebrities.”
Ans. 14 (citing Herz col. 6:43-50, wherein the customer profile is being
updated). In further support of the Examiner’s claim interpretation, we find
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

7
that Herz discloses that “each customer could adopt the customer profiles of
other individuals or programs . . . .” Herz col. 50:42-43.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that “[t]his disclosure, however,
merely means that multiple, separate profiles, are jointly used to select
particular available programming according to an agreement matrix between
the content profile of the incoming profile and the respective, separate
profiles . . . [and n]o portion of this disclosure suggests using the profile of
one user . . . to modify the data in the profile of another user . . . .” Reply
Br. 4. We disagree, and find that the recited “usage history profile used by
said processor to modify said first preference data” reads on the disclosure in
the portion of Herz cited, i.e., we find that “modifying” preference data
reasonably reads on a user adopting the customer profiles of other
individuals or programs as disclosed by Herz.
Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 41. As Appellants have not provided any separate arguments with
respect to dependent claims 42-46, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. Rejection of Claims 27-33 and 38-40
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 7-8) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cooper
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

8
and Jacobi in view of Herz is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellants’ claimed
computer-implemented method for informing a first user of
desirable programming content based on current programming
viewing of a plurality of other users is rendered unpatentable
over the combination of Cooper, Jacobi and Herz, particularly
that the combination teaches or suggests, inter alia, “displaying
on a display device of said first user a filtered list of identities
of individual ones of said plurality of other users who are
currently viewing said current programming, said list filtered
automatically based on respective permission profiles of each of
said plurality of different users,” as recited in claim 27?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Cooper, Jacobi and Herz, teaches or suggests “displaying on a display device
of said first user a filtered list of identities of individual ones of said plurality
of other users who are currently viewing said current programming, said list
filtered automatically based on respective permission profiles of each of said
plurality of different users,” as recited in claim 27. Ans. 5-8 and 15-16.
Appellants’ contend that their argument can be summarized by stating
that:
[I]f Herz fails to disclose displaying a list of identities of
individual persons in a buddy list, as contemplated by the
combination o/Cooper and Jacobi, it’s inconceivable that Herz
would teach modifying the buddy list of Cooper and Jacobi to
be filtered using permission profiles. The Examiner is likely
using a “bait and switch” argument. The Examiner cites the
disclosure of buddy lists in Cooper and Jacobi, but which lack
the teaching to filter those lists by permission profiles. The
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

9
Examiner then cites disclosures in Herz of filtering some other
type of list, e.g. a list of content preferences, and argues that
that this filtering is done by “permission profiles” of other users
because preference profiles may represent a collection of users.
Irrespective of whether the Examiner is correctly reading the
term “permission profile” on the teachings of Herz, the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection fails because of the
disconnect between the lists of Jacobi and Cooper (“buddies”
watching unknown television programming of their own
selection, somewhere else) and the lists of Herz (family
members watching television programming together in various
groupings). If reference 1 teaches a list A, and reference 2
teaches a list B filtered by factor C, it does not follow that
reference 2 teaches modifying reference 1 to provide list A
filtered by factor C.
App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis in original). We disagree with Appellants’
contentions, and agree with the Examiner’s findings in this regard.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Herz teaches
the limitation regarding permission profiles (Ans. 15), and that Herz teaches
this limitation by discussing that the customer profile is differentiated by a
plurality of variables such as “mood” and that the customer can specify
which customer profile to use as a given time using a customer identifier
interface. Id. (citing Herz col. 47:31-60). Further, we agree with the
Examiner that Herz’s “agreement matrix” can be viewed as a “filtering
system” that customizes programming content for the various user profiles.
Ans. 15 (citing Herz col. 30:18-26 and col. 43:2-15).
Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 27. Further, since Appellants have not provided separate arguments
Appeal 2010-007084
Application 10/906,754

10
with respect to dependent claims 28-40, except to argue their patentability
based upon their dependence on independent claim 27, we similarly sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 41-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the rejection is
sustained.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various
unpatentability rejections of claims 27-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and the
rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-46 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ke