Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2021

2020005318 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2021)

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.
15/153,347 05/12/2016 Skarphedinn Hedinsson 0260469 1744
63649 7590 11/26/2021
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, JOSHUA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2021 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 SKARPHEDINN HEDINSSON and MICHAEL P. GOSLIN
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, 22, and 25–28.
Claims 23 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[s]ystems and methods for broadcasting
data contents related to media contents using a media device.” Spec., Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a display;
a wireless communication element;
a non-transitory memory storing an executable code; and
a hardware processor executing the executable code to:
receive a live media broadcast signal including an
audio/video media content and a data content associated with
the audio/video media content;
extract the data content from the live media broadcast
signal;
display the audio/video media content on the display; and
transmit, in response to a trigger event in the audio/video
media content, using the wireless communication element, the
data content of the live media broadcast signal to a user device
to execute an action;
wherein displaying the audio/video media content on the
display comprises playing the audio/video media content
including an audio, and wherein the data content comprises
instructions to cause the user device to take the action in
response to detecting a keyword in the audio.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Aldava US 5,191,615 Mar. 2, 1993
Garbos US 2011/0124264 A1 May 26, 2011
Cohen US 2013/0130587 A1 May 23, 2013
Andersson US 2016/0184726 A1 June 30, 2016
Yano US 2016/0243453 A1 Aug. 25, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Andersson, Cohen, and Aldava. Final Act. 4–14.
Claims 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Andersson, Garbos, and Aldava. Final Act. 14–24.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Andersson, Cohen, Aldava, and Yano. Final Act. 24–26.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Andersson, Garbos, Aldava, and Yano. Final Act. 27–29.
OPINION
The Written Description Rejection of Claims 25 and 26
Claim 25 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the action
comprises powering down the user device in response to detecting the
keyword in the audio.” Claim 26 depends from independent claim 11 and
further recites the same subject matter as claim 25.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
4
The Examiner finds claims 25 and 26 fail to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds the
Specification, paragraph 23,
potentially supports the concept that the user device may power
down in response to a weather alert, [however,] it does not
support the concept that the user device may power down in
response to detecting keywords in the audio. Keywords only
appear to be discussed in paragraph [0024], without any mention
of powering down the user device in response to their detection.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
The inventors had possession of the claimed invention as recited in
claims 25 and 26. Appeal Br. 6–8 (citing Spec. 10:4–11:6); see also Reply
Br. 2–3.
In response, the Examiner explains
The disclosure does support having a user device power down in
response to an alert, such as an extreme weather alert. The
disclosure also supports having the user device listen for
keywords and play audio related to the media content in response
to detecting the keywords. However, nowhere in the
specification is there support for powering down the user device
in response to detecting keywords.
Ans. 4.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We do not see any reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
5
“[T]he test for sufficiency [of the written description] is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Appellant’s Specification discloses
Figure 4 shows a diagram of an exemplary media device
displaying the media content and transmitting the data content to
a user device, according to one implementation of the present
disclosure. Diagram 400 shows display 450 displaying media
content 403, and includes communication element 460, user
device 470, progress indicator 451, media timeline 431, and
trigger event 453. User device 470 may be used to communicate
a warning or a message. Trigger event 453 may be a weather
alert, such as an extreme weather watch, and media device 410
may transmit data content 105 to user device 470. User device
470 may alert the user by playing an audio, flashing one or more
lights, etc. In some implementations, user device 470 may act in
a way to prevent damage to user device 470, such as powering
down during a lightning storm to avoid damage to electrical
components resulting from a power surge, etc.
Figure 5 shows a diagram of an exemplary media device
displaying the media content and transmitting the data content to
a user device, according to one implementation of the present
disclosure. Diagram 500 shows display 550 displaying media
content 503, and includes communication element 560, user
device 570, progress indicator 551, media timeline 531, and
trigger event 553. In some implementations, user device 570 may
be a toy related to media content 503, such as a plush toy of a
character in an animated movie. When playback of media content
503 reaches trigger point 553, media device 510 may transmit
data content 105 to user device 570. In response to receiving data
content 105, user device 570 may execute an action, such as
playing an audio pronouncing a catch phased of the character at
trigger point 453. In some implementations, data content 105
may include instructions programming user device 570 to listen
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
6
for keywords in the audio played by media device 510. User
device 570 may play an audio related to media content 503 in
response to detecting the keyword in the audio played by media
device 510.
Spec. 10:4–11:6 (emphasis added)
Thus, Appellant’s Specification describes powering down the user
device in response to a lightning storm (weather alert). Further, Appellant’s
Specification describes playing audio related to the media content in
response to detecting a keyword in the audio played by the media device.
However, Appellant’s Specification does not describe powering down the
user device in response to detecting a keyword in the audio.
Thus, we determine the disclosures in Appellant’s Specification do
not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventors had
possession of the claimed subject matter as recited in claims 25 and 26 as of
the filing date.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, and 22 over
Andersson, Cohen, and Aldava
The Examiner finds Andersson, Cohen, and Aldava teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–7. In particular, the Examiner finds
Andersson and Cohen teach most limitations of claim 1, and finds Aldava
teaches “transmit, in response to a trigger event in the audio/video media
content . . . the data content of the live media broadcast signal to a user
device to execute an action” (claim 1). Final Act. 6–7 (citing Aldava, col.
15, ll. 30–51); see also Ans. 7–13.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
7
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
“[I]n Aldava, retransmission is an automatic relay, and not ‘in
response to a trigger event in the audio/video media content.’” Appeal Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 4. “There is no disclosure or teaching in Aldava that
kinetic audio signals are transmitted by the television in response to any
trigger event in the received programming.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply
Br. 4. “[I]n Aldava, a different device ‘adjacent to the television receiver’
locally transmits the audio and kinetic signals.” Appeal Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 4–5.
We do not see any reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion.
Aldava discloses
The audio kinetic device, typically, though not necessarily
an animated doll or plush animal, receives the locally transmitted
device audio and kinetic signals. The kinetic signals are further
decoded for application to the motors of the audio kinetic device
and causing motion of the audio kinetic device. The audio signal
is demodulated and applied to the loudspeaker in the audio
kinetic device. The result is that in addition to the programming
appearing on the television screen and at the loudspeaker of the
television receiver, the audio kinetic device is moving, speaking
and making sounds, simultaneously in real time as the
programming displayed and heard from the television.
Since the character voices originate from actors and voice
characterization specialists, and are received at the remote
location with essentially all their original qualities in complete
synchronization with the normal program, the performance
integrity, with all the subtle though essential attributes of tonal
inflection, volume, accent, timing, emotion and energy originally
intended by the author of the programming and portrayed by the
actor is recreated giving an entirely different perspective and
dimension to the programming.
Aldava, col. 15, ll. 29–51.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
8
Thus, we find Aldava teaches “transmit, in response to a trigger event
in the audio/video media content . . . the data content of the live media
broadcast signal to a user device to execute an action” (claim 1) because
Aldava receives signals at the television receiver, and in response to the
receipt of these signals, transmits the locally transmitted device audio and
kinetic signals, and Aldava’s audio kinetic device moves, speaks, and makes
sounds. Aldava, col. 15, ll. 29–51.
Appellant’s arguments relating to the trigger event are unavailing
because, in Aldava, the locally transmitted signals are embedded in and
synchronized with the normal program, and this embedding and
synchronization reasonably describes the normal program triggering the
transmitting of the locally transmitted signals. See Aldava, col. 15, ll. 29–51;
see also Aldava, col. 15, ll. 18–22 (“However, the stereo audio outputs of
the television receiver 24 or other stereo audio demodulator provides first
and second audio signals that have embedded both device audio and also
kinetic audio signals.”). Further, Appellant’s arguments relating to devices
are unavailing because Aldava discloses
[a]t remote locations in the manner that television is normally
received, a local transmitter section 200 receives the television
signals from the broadcast antenna 18, separates the kinetic
device audio and kinetic signals and rebroadcasts the separated
kinetic device audio and kinetic information to be applied to the
kinetic device 14.”

Aldava, col. 3, ll. 56–63.
This disclosure reasonably suggests to a skilled artisan that the
functions of the local transmitter section 200 could be implemented in one or
more hardware processors. Aldava, col. 3, ll. 56–63.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
9
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 11–15, 21,
and 22, which are not separately argued with particularity. Appeal Br. 12.
Claim 7 further recites “wherein the trigger event is a breaking news
event, a weather alert, or a user alert event.” Claim 17 recites the same
subject matter.
The Examiner finds Andersson teaches the further recited subject
matter of claims 7 and 17. Final Act. 8, 13 (citing Andersson ¶ 81); see also
Andersson ¶ 81 (“[S]ynchronized binary metadata 404(a) includes
information that means that the peripheral device ‘Jessie doll’ with version
higher than 2.x should perform action ‘giggle’ at time point 1874472.”),
Ans. 14 (“[A]ny time a toy such as Buzz Lightyear speaks can be seen as a
user alert event.”).
Appellant argues “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have
replaced the ‘trigger event’ of Aldava . . . with ‘a user alert event’ of
Andersson.” Appeal Br. 13.
We do not see any reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion for claims 7 and 17.
In Aldava, the locally transmitted signals are embedded in and
synchronized with the normal program, and this embedding and
synchronization reasonably describes the normal program triggering the
transmitting of the locally transmitted signals. See Aldava, col. 15, ll. 29–51;
see also Aldava, col. 15, ll. 18–22.
Andersson describes synchronized metadata, and describes the
metadata is a user alert event. Andersson ¶ 81.
Together, Aldava and Andersson suggest the normal program
triggering the transmitting of locally transmitted signals that constitute a user
alert event. Aldava, col. 15, ll. 18–22, 29–51; Andersson ¶ 81.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
10
The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the teachings of
Aldava and Andersson, and Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s
reasoning is incorrect. Final Act. 7, 12.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 17.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, and 22 over
Andersson, Garbos, and Aldava
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. Appeal Br. 8–13; see also Reply Br. 3–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21, and 22 for the same reasons discussed above.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27 and 28 over Andersson, Cohen,
Aldava, and Yano
Claim 27 further recites “wherein the trigger event is a breaking news
event or a weather alert.” Claim 28 recites the same subject matter.
The Examiner finds Yano teaches the further recited subject matter.
Final Act. 24–26 (citing Yano ¶ 87); see also Yano ¶ 87 (“notification of
unrelated news, events, or other information”), Ans. 15 (“Yano discloses
that different events, such as news unrelated to the movie or toy, may
prompt the toy to present a notification to a user.”).
Appellant argues “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have
replaced the ‘trigger event’ of Aldava . . . with ‘information identifying an
event that is occurring (or is to occur) in a virtual environment’ of Yano.”
Appeal Br. 14–15.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
11
We do not see any reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion for claims 27 and
28.
In Aldava, the locally transmitted signals are embedded in and
synchronized with the normal program, and this embedding and
synchronization reasonably describes the normal program triggering the
transmitting of the locally transmitted signals. See Aldava, col. 15, ll. 29–51;
see also Aldava, col. 15, ll. 18–22.
Yano discloses “different events, such as news unrelated to the movie
or toy, may prompt the toy to present a notification to a user.” Yano ¶ 87.
Together, Aldava and Yano suggest the normal program triggering the
transmitting of locally transmitted signals that constitute a breaking news
event. Aldava, col. 15, ll. 18–22, 29–51; Yano ¶ 87.
The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the teachings of
Aldava and Yano, and Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s
reasoning is incorrect. Final Act. 25–26.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27 and 28 over Andersson, Garbos,
Aldava, and Yano
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. Appeal Br. 13–15.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28
for the same reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2020-005318
Application 15/153,347
12
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 11–15, 17, 21, 22,
and 25–28 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25, 26 112(a) Written
Description
25, 26
1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21,
22
103 Andersson, Cohen,
Aldava
1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21,
22

1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21,
22
103 Andersson,
Garbos, Aldava
1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21,
22

27, 28 103 Andersson, Cohen,
Aldava, Yano
27, 28
27, 28 103 Andersson,
Garbos, Aldava,
Yano
27, 28
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7, 11–
15, 17, 21,
22, 25–28

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED