Ex Parte Stecyk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

10663015 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte POLLY STECYK
____________

Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14, 16, 18-30, and 33-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for allowing a
user to supervise personal exposure to a program exhibited by a consumer
electronics device. The consumer electronics device includes a facial
recognition system and media rating enforcement circuitry that analyzes a
program signal that either blocks or passes the program signal based on
certain content, and viewer based criteria or time based criteria. A user can
program the enforcement circuitry with the content and viewer based criteria
in the form of one or more viewing profiles comprising viewer specifications
and content-based specifications associated with the viewer specifications,
which specify a rating and/or a subject matter category. The enforcement
circuitry receives one or more viewer indicators from the facial recognition
system that are indicative of the viewers present in a viewing area and one or
more content-based indicators, which are indicative of a rating and/or a
subject matter category of the program. The enforcement circuitry compares
the viewer indicators with the viewer specifications and then the content-
based indicators with the content-based specifications. Based on this
comparison, the enforcement circuitry either passes the program signal to an
output device for transformation of the program signal into the program or
blocks the program signal from being sent to the output device. See
Abstract.
Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

3
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of supervising personal exposure to a consumer
electronics device, the method comprising:

receiving a program signal suitable for conversion by the consumer
electronics device into user discernible information;

receiving one or more viewer indicators indicative of one or more
viewers present in a viewing area corresponding to the consumer
electronics device;

comparing the one or more viewer indicators with a plurality of
viewer specifications to identify one or more viewing profiles
associated with the one or more viewers present in the viewing area;

receiving timing information indicative of a reference time;

selecting a time range specification corresponding to the timing
information;

receiving content-based specifications corresponding to the one or
more viewing profiles associated with the one or more viewers present
in the viewing area and the selected time range specifications, wherein
the one or more viewing profiles includes a plurality of time range
specifications, wherein the time range specifications each corresponds
individually to a separate content-based specification;

receiving a content-based indicator indicative of the content of the
user discernible information;

Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

4
comparing the content-based indicator with content-based
specifications corresponding to each of the one or more viewing
profiles associated with the one or more viewers present in the
viewing area and corresponding to the selected time range
specifications; and

generating a control signal based on the comparison between content-
based indicator and content-based specifications.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 18-30, 33, 34, and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S.
7,134,130 B1, Nov. 7, 2006) in view of Johnson (U.S. Pub. No. U.S.
2004/0078806 A1) further in view of Rodriguez (U.S. Pub. No.
2009/0282428 A1).

2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thomas, Johnson, and Rodriguez, in further in view
of Ganq-Sik Yoon (Korean Pub. No. 10-2000-0033070).

Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

5
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Thomas, Johnson, and Rodriquez teaches the limitation of
“one or more viewing profiles associated with the one or more viewers
present in the viewing area and the selected time range specifications,
wherein the one or more viewing profiles includes a plurality of time range
specifications, wherein the time range specifications each corresponds
individually to a separate content-based specification.”

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Rodriguez does not teach “viewing profiles”
including time range specifications. App. Br. 14. Appellant in particular
argues that Rodriguez only teaches block particular programming based on
time and program rating, without reference to a viewer or parameters set for
individual viewers. Id. Appellant further argues that non-viewer based
method of Rodriguez is antithetical to viewer based methods, such as
Thomas and Johnson. Id. at 14-15.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Rodriguez (¶¶ [0115], [0118]) teaches a
plurality of distinct viewer profiles, by implementing an access identification
scheme; e.g., personal identification number (PIN) (Ans. 28). The viewing
profiles may include a time range specification, such as time range
specification 2902 and individual content-based specification parameter
2904, as shown in Rodriguez Figure 29C.
Appellant argues the program is blocked without reference to viewers,
therefore antithetical to Thomas and Johnson. App. Br. 14. We do not
Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

6
agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner found that Rodriguez (¶
[0115]) teaches a viewer based system which authorized users may be
identified and distinguished from one another by passwords, speech
recognition or fingerprint recognition (Ans. 28). The Examiner’s finding is
consistent with Thomas that identifies the viewer with a video scanner or
audio (Abstract).
Appellant argues that Rodriguez teaches an “all or nothing” method
that was criticized by Thomas (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 3). We do not
agree. Thomas teaches a method of blocking the content if an unauthorized
person is in the viewing area (col. 6, ll. 20-24). Thomas also teaches viewer
profiles (216) that specify the material that each user can assess (col. 9, ll.
57-79, col. 10, ll. 58-61). The Examiner only relied upon Rodriguez for a
teaching of the time range specifications corresponding individually to a
separate content-based specification (Final Office Action, 7). Rodriguez (¶
[0124]) provides blocking profiles which include time range specification
corresponding to separate content-based specification (Ans. 27). Rodriguez
(¶ [0124]) further states that the “block entry specify what is to be included
and excluded for certain time periods” (Ans.12). We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that their combination would produce the predictable result of
allowing a parent to configure a television system to block
objectionable content material while children are awake and
allow a more [adult] content when only adults are around,
hence the implementation of independent ratings parameters
2904 for different time range specifications 2902.

(Ans. 29).
Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

7
Appellant further argues that the combination Rodriguez with Thomas
and Johnson would render Thomas unsatisfactory for the intended purpose
and impermissibly change the principle of operation, and that the Examiner
used improper hindsight (App. Br. 15). We do not agree. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that there is a reasonable expectation of success to
combine the references (Ans. 28). Obviousness does not require absolute
predictability, only a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., a reasonable
expectation of obtaining similar properties. See, e.g., In re O'Farrell, 853
F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellant’s argument regarding improper hindsight (App. Br. 15)
because Thomas teaches away from non-viewer bases systems is not
persuasive. Thomas, Johnson, and Rodriguez are directed to obtaining the
similar property of parental control over television content (Ans.29),
therefore the motivation to combine the references comes from the
references themselves, not Appellant’s Specification. Any judgment on
obviousness is necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but
so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 23, and for
the same reasons, the rejection of claims 2-14, 16, 18-22, 24-30, and 33-35.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Thomas,
Johnson, and Rodriguez teaches the limitation of “one or more viewing
Appeal 2011-011728
Application 10/663,015

8
profiles associated with the one or more viewers present in the viewing area
and the selected time range specifications, wherein the one or more viewing
profiles includes a plurality of time range specifications, wherein the time
range specifications each corresponds individually to a separate content-
based specification.”

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14, 16, 18-30, and 33-35
are 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).

AFFIRMED

kis