Michel, Kenneth

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

12799151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

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.
12/799,151 04/19/2010 Kenneth Michel 0260265 2471
63649 7590 04/01/2020
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
FLYNN, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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@farjami.com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarjami@farjami.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH MICHEL
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL M. BARRY, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–11, and 16–22. Claims 2–5 and
12–15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Disney
Enterprises, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for television
application channel sync. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use by a media streaming device for
providing television application channel sync, the method
comprising:
retrieving a plurality of business rules from a business
rules server, wherein the plurality of business rules specify
whether each of a plurality of television applications is set to be
available or unavailable by a content administrator for each of a
plurality of tunable channels, and wherein the plurality of
business rules further specify whether content for display by each
of the plurality of television applications is restricted by the
content administrator for each of the plurality of tunable
channels;
determining a channel presently tuned from the plurality
of tunable channels;
applying the plurality of business rules to the channel
presently tuned to determine one or more television applications
of the plurality of television applications set to be available by
the content administrator for the channel presently tuned from
the plurality of television applications, wherein the plurality of
business rules restrict content for display by the one or more
television applications set to be available based on an agreement
with a developer of the one or more television applications set to
be available;
displaying, on a display of the media streaming device, a
main video content of the channel presently tuned;
presenting, on the display of the media streaming device,
a list of the one or more television applications determined to be
available by applying the plurality of business rules for the
channel presently tuned while displaying the main video content
of the channel presently tuned, and enabling selection,
concurrently with presenting the list of the one or more television
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

3
applications determined to be available for the channel presently
tuned and concurrently with displaying the main video content
of the channel presently tuned, of the one or more television
applications presented;
receiving a user selection of one or more applications from
the list of the one or more television applications determined to
be available for the channel presently tuned; and
rendering, on the display of the media streaming device,
the user selected one or more-applications for the channel
presently tuned while displaying the main video content of the
channel presently tuned.
Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Peterka
de Andrade
Del Sesto
McCarthy
Slocum
Flynn
Park
US 6,948,183 B1
US 2005/0188402 A1
US 2007/0130581 A1
US 2008/0034392 A1
US 2009/0259957 A1
US 2010/0014834 A1
US 2010/0100903 A1
Sept. 20, 2005
Aug. 25, 2005
June 7, 2007
Feb. 7, 2008
Oct. 15, 2009
Jan. 21, 2010
Apr. 22, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 8–11, 16, and 18–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park, Peterka, Del Sesto, McCarthy,
Slocum, and de Andrade. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

4
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Peterka, Del Sesto, McCarthy, Slocum, de Andrade,
and Flynn. Final Act. 15.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art references teach
or suggest “wherein the plurality of business rules restrict content for display
by the one or more television applications set to be available based on an
agreement with a developer of the one or more television applications set to
be available,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the teachings of six
combined references: Park, Peterka, Del Sesto, McCarthy, Slocum, and de
Andrade. Final Act. 3–13. With respect to the disputed limitation set forth
above, the Examiner finds “Del Sesto does disclose . . . the rules restrict
content for display by one or more television applications based on an
agreement with a developer of the one or more television applications.”
Final Act. 8 (citing Del Sesto ¶¶ 2, 28, 47, 58, 62). The Examiner explains
that Del Sesto’s “system can make determinations about
controlling/restricting interactive content that is set to be displayed by an
application, with list/rules that are based on legal issues, i.e., agreements,
and/or other contractual agreements/arrangements with
providers/developers.” Final Act. 8.
Appellant contends Del Sesto is deficient because it fails to teach that
application content is restricted based on any agreement with the application
developer. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues “there is no disclosure,
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

5
teaching or suggestion in Del Sesto that the OPT field [application blocking
capability] is set by an application developer or based on an agreement with
the application developer.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further argues Del
Sesto is deficient because it blocks applications in their entirety, as opposed
to restricting certain content within an available application as recited in the
disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 15.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. Although not limiting,
Appellant’s Specification describes a typical scenario for implementing the
recited “plurality of business rules restrict content for display by the one or
more television applications set to be available based on an agreement with a
developer of the one or more television applications set to be available.”
The Specification describes:
Furthermore, granting “Allow” permission to apps may be
contingent on separate negotiated contracts, allowing more
refined control over the display of app content. For example, it
can be seen in the Disney channel row that both Facebook and
Twitter are set to “Allow.” This arrangement may, for example,
be contingent on an agreement that the Facebook and Twitter
apps are not allowed to show any advertising content, which may
conflict with advertising content shown in main content 290 or
dilute the value of programming shown in main content 290. Or,
for example, such arrangement may be contingent on the addition
of language and content filters or human moderation to restrict
subject matter for particular audiences.
Spec. 11, ll. 4–12. Thus, the content restriction recited in claim 1 relates to a
“more refined control” that restricts content within the application that is
otherwise available for use, as opposed to merely restricting the execution of
the application itself.
Del Sesto relates to “the insertion of interactive content codes in the
video signal at certain points in the path the video takes from the broadcast
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

6
origination to the customer premises equipment.” Del Sesto ¶ 10. Del Sesto
teaches that “this technology is applied to solve the problem where
interactive content is deleted, destroyed, corrupted, striped out or otherwise
modified (“corrupted”) during the transmission.” Del Sesto ¶ 12. Del Sesto
further teaches that interactive content may be customized by providing “on-
the-fly content adjustment.” Del Sesto ¶ 45. This content adjustment is
effected using an OPT field which “specifies whether an interactive content
may be replaced by the interactive broadcast server.” Id. Del Sesto provides
an example of this functionality, teaching that “for a contest interactive
content, the [OPT] field 308 could specify that interactive content be
broadcasted only if the local subsystem has legalized such contests.” Id.
Del Sesto further describes that in situations such as these, “the local
subsystem may disable the application.” Id. ¶ 58. Del Sesto further details
the application blocking scheme, stating that “the local server maintains a
list of those applications which are blocked.” Id. ¶ 62.
Although Del Sesto teaches restricting applications generally based on
(at least implied) agreements with the interactive content providers, we
discern in Del Sesto no teaching or suggestion that the content within the
applications can be controlled. Rather, Del Sesto either blocks, or it does
not block, an application based on the contents of the OPT field. For
example, in Figure 7, Del Sesto provides a flow diagram depicting the
processing of its interactive broadcast server. Id. ¶ 25. There, Del Sesto
describes blocking applications and replacing applications, but nowhere does
it reference modifying content within an application. Id. Fig. 7. Similarly,
in the example depicted in Figure 8, blocked applications are identified, but
no reference is made to any application having modified content based on
Appeal 2019-001653
Application 12/799,151

7
the OPT field. In sum, because Del Sesto acts on applications in their
entirety and does not modify content within applications, we agree with
Appellant that Del Sesto does not teach or suggest “restrict[ing] content for
display by the one or more television applications set to be available” as
recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 6–10, nor of independent
claim 11, commensurate in scope, and its dependent claims 16–22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Statute Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8–11,
16, 18–22
103 Park, Peterka, Del
Sesto, McCarthy,
Slocum,
de Andrade
1, 6, 8–11,
16, 18–22
7, 17 103 Park, Peterka, Del
Sesto, McCarthy,
Slocum,
de Andrade, Flynn
7, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–11,
16–22

REVERSED