Ex Parte 6701523 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2013

90011528 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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.
90/011,528 03/03/2011 6701523 004029-0114-501 1812
75563 7590 08/06/2013
ROPES & GRAY LLP
PATENT DOCKETING 39/361
1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8704
EXAMINER
WASSUM, LUKE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2013 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 INDEX SYSTEMS, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
________________

Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B11
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction

1 The patent involved in this reexamination appeal proceeding (the “’523
Patent”) issued to Hancock et al. on March 2, 2004.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

2
This reexamination proceeding arose from two third-party requests for
ex parte reexamination filed on March 3, 2011 (Control Number
90/011,528) and April 13, 2011 (Control Number 90/011,550), respectively.
The two reexaminations were sua sponte merged by the Office in an Order
mailed on June 30, 2011. Index Systems, Inc. (Appellant), the owner of the
patent under reexamination,2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306
from a Final Rejection of claims 1-13.3 An oral hearing was conducted on
April 24, 2013. A transcript of the hearing was made of record on July 18,
2013.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.
Related Proceeding
Appellant has informed us about the following judicial proceedings
that may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by, or have a
bearing on the Board’s decision in the present appeal:
In the Matter of Certain Products Containing Interactive
Program Guide and Parental Control Technology, Inv., No.
337-TA-747 (I.T.C. 2010) (Terminated).

Rovi Corp. v. Toshiba Corp., Case No. 1:10-cv-00931 (D. Del.
2010) (Dismissed).

2 See Patent Assignment Abstract of Title, Reel 014522 Frame 0641
recorded September 22, 2003, and entered into the record of Control No.
90/011,528 as “Title Report” on March 10, 2011, and into the record of
Control No. 90/011,550 on March 16, 2011.
3 Appellant relies on its Appeal Brief filed August 8, 2012 (“App. Br.”) and
its Reply Brief filed December 11, 2012 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

3
In the Matter of Certain Products Containing Interactive
Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology, Inv. No.
337-TA-820 (I.T.C. 2011) (Pending as of 8/8/2012).

Rovi Corp. v. Haier Group Corp., Case No. 1:11-cv-01140 (D.
Del. 2011) (Stayed as of 8/8/2012).

Rovi Corp. v. Vizio Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-01129 (D. Del.
2011) (Stayed as of 8/8/2012).

In the Matter of Certain Products Containing Interactive
Program Guide and Parental Control Technology, Inv. No.
337-TA-845 (I.T.C. 2012) (Pending as of 8/8/2012).

Rovi Corp. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-
00547 (D. Del. 2012) (Stayed as of 8/8/2012)

Appellant has also informed us of substantive examination in related
U.S. Patent Application 10/682,785, assigned to Appellant, in which a Final
Office Action was mailed on July 20, 1012. App. Br. 3.

The Invention
The invention relates to a system for restricting access to television
programs comprising an input for accepting cursor movement and selection
commands. The system includes a display that depicts a two dimensional
matrix composed of rows and columns of tiles. Either the rows of tiles or
the columns of tiles correspond to overall program ratings and either the
rows of tiles or the columns of tiles correspond to specific program content
indications and depicts highlighting of individual tiles or groups of tiles
based on the cursor movement commands. The system further includes
means for blocking or allowing viewing of television programs based on the
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

4
overall program ratings and specific content ratings of the rows and columns
corresponding to the highlighted tiles when a selection command is entered
into the input. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized (App. Br. 26,
Claims App’x):
1. A system for restricting access to television programs
comprising:
an input for accepting cursor movement and selection
commands;
a display that depicts a two dimensional matrix composed
of rows and columns of tiles, wherein either the rows of tiles or
the columns of tiles correspond to overall program ratings and
either the rows of tiles or the columns of tiles correspond to
specific program content indications and depicts highlighting of
individual tiles or groups of tiles based on the cursor movement
commands; and
means for blocking or allowing viewing of television
programs based on the overall program ratings and specific
content ratings of the rows and columns corresponding to the
highlighted tiles when a selection command is entered into the
input.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

5
Claim 1 relates to Fig. 24A4 (App. Br. 4-5) which shows TV Ratings
Codes listed on the left side 110 of the grid (col. 10, ll. 22-24) and TV
Content Codes across the top 114 of the grid (col. 10, ll. 29-32). Each grid
tile represents a particular combination of a TV Ratings Code and a TV
Content Code. Col. 10, ll. 32-34. In Fig. 24A, tiles 100 and 102 have been
highlighted to indicate they have been selected. Thereafter, programs that
are rated TV-PG and have either L or V content codes will be blocked. Col.
10, ll. 43-47.

The Rejections
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Casement (US 5,969,748; Oct. 19, 1999) in view of EIA-
744 Standard, Transport of Content Advisory Information Using Extended
Data Service (XDS) (Oct. 1997). Final Rejection 26-40.5
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Casement in view of EIA-744 and further in view of Abecassis (US
5,610,653; March 11, 1997). Final Rej. 40-42.
The Expert Declarations
Appellant provides four Declarations by Stephen D. Bristow.
The Initial Declaration

4 Appellant informs us that “[d]ue to a typographical error, the ‘523 patent
specification erroneously refers to Fig. 24a as ‘FIG. 23a.’ See, e.g., col. 10,
lines 18, 22, 43. There is no Fig. 23A in the patent; only Fig. 24A.” App.
Br. 4 n.1.
5 We refer to the Final Rejection (“Final Rej.) mailed March 9, 2012.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

6
The initial Declaration (dated October 27, 2011) (“Initial Decl.”)
opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have, among other
qualifications, “several years of relevant experience, such as the design or
research of computer display systems, video recorders, Teletext decoders, or
cable or satellite TV set-top boxes or any equivalent experience.” Initial
Decl. ¶ 8. 6
The First Supplemental Declaration
The first Supplemental Declaration (dated January 29, 2012) (“First
Supp. Decl.”) states that EIA-744 “describes a coding scheme for including
both MPAA ratings information and TV Parental Guidelines information in
the vertical blanking interval of a television signal.” First Supp. Decl. ¶3.
It opines that it would not have been obvious “for one of ordinary skill in the
art to implement a user interface in the format of the Designation Table of
EIA-744” because EIA-744 “is not pertinent to user interface design” and “a
user interface designer would not be presented with or asked to work from a
raw data transmission standard like” EIA-744. First Supp. Decl. ¶8.
Instead, “a more typical practice would be to have a management or
business team select the desired features from the [EIA-744] standard and
draw up a requirements list that includes the selected features.” Eventually,

6 At the oral hearing, Appellant’s representative asserted that a different
person of ordinary skill applies to this case: “[a] person of ordinary skill in
the art would be a person that’s skilled in designing interfaces, user
interfaces.” Oral hearing transcript (“Tr.”) 6:4-5. See also, for example,
App. Br. 14 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand EIA-
744 to be or to disclose a user interface”); 15 (EIA-744 “would not even
commend itself to a person of ordinary skill considering designing the
claimed interface.”)
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

7
a requirements list would be provided to a user interface designer. First
Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. Mr. Bristow further opines that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art of user interface design for consumer electronics would not look to,
nor be inspired by, EIA-744 in developing a new interface or modifying an
existing interface.” First Supp. Decl. ¶ 15. He also opines that it would not
have been obvious to replace Casement’s ratings list with EIA-744’s
Designation Table because the replacement would reduce parents’ flexibility
and might allow objectionable programs to be viewed instead of being
blocked. First Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 20-24.
The Second Supplemental Declaration
The second Supplemental Declaration (dated April 19, 2012)
(“Second Supp. Decl.”) opines that one of ordinary skill in the art could
combine the teachings of Casement and EIA-744 to provide the following
two columns having more detail than the two Casement columns and that
such a combination would be user-friendly. (Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.

Such a large combination would not overwhelm or confuse a user, he opines,
because “users of television program guides at the time of Casement were
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

8
familiar with grid displays that required left, right, up and down scrolling to
view television program listings on different channels at different times.”
Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.
Mr. Bristow also opines that although the information in EIA-744’s
Designation Table would be “of limited utility to a user interface designer,”
it would be useful to a communications engineer. Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 16-
18.
This Declaration also explains that “a user interface involves
interaction with a user to effectuate the user’s control instructions.” Second
Supp. Decl. ¶ 16.
The Third Supplemental Declaration
The third Supplemental Declaration (dated June 8, 2012) (“Third
Supp. Decl.”) discusses an interface proposed by the Examiner in a May 9,
2012 Advisory Action that the Examiner concluded would be
straightforward and intuitively easy to comprehend. Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 3.
The Examiner’s proposed interface, reproduced on page 2 of the Third
Supplemental Declaration is shown below.

Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

9

This Declaration opines that the Examiner’s proposed grid would not
be used because it would “allow[] a user to select ratings and content code
combinations that are not defined or supported by the EIA-744 standard.”
Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. For example, this Declaration opines that a user
could believe the combination “TV-Y” and “L” is blocked without knowing
that it was, in fact, not blocked. Third Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. This Declaration
also opines that the Examiner’s proposed grid fails to address the MPAA
Codes and the FV TV Code, and has other flaws. Third Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 9-23.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 7-13
The Examiner finds that Figure 2D of Casement teaches a display that
depicts a two dimensional matrix composed of rows and columns of tiles
wherein the rows and columns of tiles depict highlighting of individual tiles
or groups of tiles based on cursor movement commands. Final Rej. 27-28.
The Examiner also finds that page 2 of EIA-744 teaches a grid of rows and
columns wherein the rows correspond to overall program ratings and the
columns correspond to specific program content indications. Final Rej. 29.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
implement (not replace as suggested by the First Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 20, 24 and
as contended by Appellant at Reply Br. 5) Casement’s Figure 2D in the
format illustrated on page 2 of EIA-744 because the guidelines and codes in
EIA-744 were approved for use in the broadcasting industry; the EIA-744
format would provide the capability for a user to establish different age-
based categories for different types of content; and it would provide more
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

10
flexibility for a user in the selective blocking of programming by distinct
combinations of overall program ratings and content. Final Rej. 29-30.
Appellant’s Interpretation of Claim 1
Appellant presents contentions that are not supported by the wording
of claim 1. First, Appellant contends that “[t]he claims on appeal are for a
user interface.” See, e.g., App. Br. 6, 12; Reply Br. 4. This contention is not
supported by the claim language itself or by the evidence of record.
Appellant’s expert defines a user interface as something that involves
interaction with a user to effectuate the user’s control instructions. Second
Supp. Decl. ¶ 16. Claim 1, however, does not recite a user interface as
defined by Mr. Bristow. Claim 1 recites a “system for restricting access;”
“an input for accepting cursor movement;” “a display that depicts”
something; and a “means for blocking or allowing viewing” of something.
Claim 1 nowhere recites interaction with a user to effectuate the user’s
control instructions or structure that could be used to implement interaction
with a user.
Appellant also contends that claim 1 recites a “two dimensional
matrix user interface” (App. Br. 8) and, alternatively, a “two dimensional
matrix interface.” App. Br. 10, 12. Claim 1, however, recites “a display that
depicts a two dimensional matrix.” (emphasis added). It does not recite a
two dimensional matrix user interface or a two dimensional matrix interface.
Therefore, none of Appellant’s arguments regarding the purported
failure of the combined references to teach a matrix user interface, a matrix
interface, or any other interface are persuasive.
The person of ordinary skill in the art and what
would have been obvious to such a person
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

11

The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. “A
person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Obviousness is determined based on what would have been obvious to
the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art rather than to particular
individuals such as Casement. See Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson &
Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981); that is, to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. See also
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that
the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious
the invention under review.”).
Consistently with the language of claim 1 that recites a display,
Appellant’s expert, Mr. Bristow, opines that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had, among other qualifications, “several years of relevant
experience, such as the design or research of computer display systems,
video recorders, Teletext decoders, or cable or satellite TV set-top boxes or
any equivalent experience.” Initial Declaration ¶ 8 (emphasis added). He
does not opine that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
someone who was experienced in designing user interfaces.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

12
Although Mr. Bristow’s supplemental Declarations refer to a designer
of user interfaces, he does not change his opinion regarding the pertinent
person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Mr. Bristow states it would
not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “to implement a
user interface in the format of the Designation Table of EIA-744” because “a
user interface designer would not be presented with or asked to work from a
raw data transmission standard like” EIA-744. First Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. We
conclude that this statement refers to (1) Mr. Bristow’s previously defined
person of ordinary skill in the art; and, separately, (2) a user interface
designer – a person who is different from his defined person of ordinary skill
in the art.
The suggestions in Appellant’s briefs that the pertinent person of
ordinary skill in the art was an interface designer are not persuasive because
those statements are only attorney argument, which cannot take the place of
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Similarly
non-persuasive is the statement of Appellant’s attorney at the oral hearing
that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be a person that’s skilled in
designing interfaces, user interfaces.” Tr. 6:4-5.
Based on both the claim language and Mr. Bristow’s Initial
Declaration, we conclude that the pertinent person of ordinary skill in the art
was someone who had experience in designing displays.
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to combine
EIA-744 with Casement under an “obvious to try” theory because there was
no need or problem with Casement’s two-list ratings/content interface and
the Examiner failed to show that EIA-744’s Designation Table was among a
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

13
finite number of identified solutions. App. Br. 14-15. Appellant also
contends it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of the two
references because EIA-744 is directed to a completely different endeavor
and market participants viewed EIA-744 as irrelevant to the challenge of
user interface design. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3. Appellant also contends
that under no circumstances would a person of ordinary skill in the art
consider combining Casement and EIA-744.7 The Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s expert refute Appellant’s contentions.
As held by the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421:
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that
instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might
show that it was obvious under § 103.

Expanding on this analysis, the Federal Circuit in Unigene Labs., Inc. v.
Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) held that “[t]o render a
claim obvious, prior art cannot be ‘vague’ and must collectively, although
not explicitly, guide an artisan of ordinary skill towards a particular
solution.”

7 “Even accepting the Examiner’s premise that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would consider combining the teachings of Casement with the TV
Parental Guidelines system of EIA-744 (which such a person would not
do).” App. Br. 21.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

14
The Examiner finds there was a design need and/or market pressure to
solve a problem. Specifically, the Examiner finds that an FCC order
required television manufacturers to implement a system allowing parents to
block objectionable broadcast content within a certain period of time,
thereby creating a need in the art for a mechanism to implement the order.
Ans. 5-6. Appellant agrees that the FCC issued such an order. Reply Br. 2-
3. But, Appellant contends that there was no problem to be solved because
Casement taught how to solve the problem (Reply Br. 2) and that there was
no market pressure because the FCC order gave manufacturers nearly two
years to plan for implementation. Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contentions.
The existence of one solution to a problem or design need does not
prevent one skilled in the art from searching for or considering other
solutions. As for market pressure, Appellant admits that the FCC extended
the compliance deadline to allow nearly two years to plan for
implementation because of market pressure; i.e., manufacturer schedules and
the need to provide a smooth transition for product introduction. Reply Br.
3.
The Examiner also finds that although other designs could have been
used to comply with the FCC order, two solutions would have suggested
themselves to an ordinary artisan: a list-based solution and a grid-based
solution. Ans. 6-7. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reference to
other possible designs, standing alone, negates obviousness. Reply Br. 2.
We disagree because the prior art is not vague, it collectively guides and
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

15
directs an artisan of ordinary skill toward a solution, and provides a good
reason to pursue a known option. See Unigene Labs and KSR, supra.
Here, Casement’s Fig. 2D provides explicit indication of which
parameters were critical: ratings (e.g., “G,” “PG,” “PG13”) and content (e.g.,
“Profanity,” “Nudity,” “Violence.”). The two dimensional matrix
Designation Table of EIA-744 uses very similar parameters as those in
Casement’s Fig. 2D, and more. For example, the EIA-744 Designation
Table lists ratings (e.g., “TV-Y,” “TV-G,” “TV-PG”) and content (e.g., “L”
for Adult Language; “S” for Sexual Situations; and “V” for Violence).
Appellant agrees that a person of skill in the art would have had
access to the EIA-744 publication but contends that such a person would
have no motivation to look at the publication for purposes of designing an
interface. Tr. 6:6-19. As stated above, however, this argument is not
persuasive at least because the pertinent person of ordinary skill in the art is
not a person designing an interface. The pertinent person of ordinary skill is
someone who designs displays. Accordingly, because EIA-744 was
available, it is presumed that the person of ordinary skill knew about it and,
not being an automaton, would consider its arrangement of ratings and
content.
In fact, Mr. Bristow’s Second Supplemental Declaration demonstrates
that one of ordinary skill in the art would, in fact, consider combining the
teachings of Casement and EIA-744. More specifically, Mr. Bristow opines
that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a “natural combination of
the age-based ratings and content codes of EIA-744 with Casement’s
blocking interface” and that “the EIA-744-Casement interface would have
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

16
been user-friendly.” Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 6. Even more specifically, Mr.
Bristow actually shows one possible arrangement of rating and content
codes that would result from such a combination. Mr. Bristow states:
Respecting these two teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art8
would arrange the rating and content codes codified in EIA-744
into the following “EIA-744-Casement interface”:

Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. Again, therefore, Appellant’s arguments in its
briefs are not persuasive because they constitute attorney argument that
contradicts the evidence provided by its expert, Mr. Bristow.
The only remaining issue, therefore, is whether it would have been
obvious to arrange the two lists of information in Casement differently by
implementing the teachings of EIA-744. In fact, Appellant agrees that EIA-
744 teaches a two-dimensional matrix comprising ratings on the left and
content categories on top and agrees that “that’s what we did here.” Tr.
8:19-23.

8 As Mr. Bristow stated in his Initial Declaration, a person of ordinary skill
in the art includes someone who has experience in “the design or research of
computer display systems.” Initial Decl. ¶ 8.
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

17
The Examiner concludes that “an ordinary artisan may draw on any
number of sources for inspiration.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further concludes
that “[a] simple glance at the Designation Table would have served to
convey to an ordinary artisan some of the advantages that a grid-based
approach would have had over a list-based approach, given the requirement
that parents be able to block programming based on age-based ratings, by
content indicators, or by a combination of the two. . . .[T]he information is
presented such that a viewer would quickly and easily comprehend the
information being conveyed.” Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellant does
not dispute these conclusions. We agree with the Examiner because the
Examiner has presented reasons with a rational underpinning to combine the
teachings of the two references.
Finally, Appellant contends that if Casement and EIA-744 were
combined, the resulting device would result in an interface that “allows a
user unknowingly to make ineffective selections” would “be confusing and
extremely user unfriendly” (App. Br. 18), would exclude several ratings and
content code information, and would be difficult to use. App. Br. 19; Reply
Br. 5-7. But, claim 1 does not require all matrix cells to be useful. Claim 1
only recites a two dimensional matrix having tiles corresponding to overall
program ratings and specific program content indications. Claim 1 does not
require an ability to block or allow all combinations of program ratings and
program content indications in the recited two dimensional matrix. Instead,
claim 1 recites a general blocking or allowing capability “based on” program
ratings and content ratings “corresponding to . . . highlighted tiles.”
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

18
Prima facie obviousness does not require certainty; but, rather,
requires only a reasonable expectation of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success . . . . For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success.”). Mr. Bristow and
Appellant impliedly agree that a Casement-EIA-744 combination would
provide a reasonable expectation of at least partial success because
highlighting some of the tiles will block some programs.
 Replacing Casement’s content categories and MPAA rating’s
lists with EIA-744’s Designation Table would “reduce” parents’ blocking
flexibility and objectionable programs “may be allowed” (First Supp. Decl. ¶
20) and “would allow programs to be viewed that were intended to be
blocked.” First Supp. Decl. ¶ 24.
 “[T]he Examiner’s proposed grid interface is incomplete and
improperly simplified. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention of the ‘523 patent would not have eliminated such information
from a parental control interface. Doing so would have prevented a user
from (1) blocking movies based on the MPAA movie ratings disclosed by
EIA-744 . . . and (2) preventing the user from blocking fantasy violence . . . .
Third Supp. Decl. ¶16 (emphasis added).
 “[T]he Examiner’s proposed grid interface is incomplete by
excluding several ratings and content code information.” App. Br. 19
(emphasis added).
 “The completed grid of Table I [shown on App. Br. 20],
furthermore, would make a very inefficient interface.” App. Br. 21
Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

19
(emphasis added). “[O]nly 26 of the 104 cells correspond to operationally
selectable options.” Id.
Claim 1 does not require that all combinations of rows and columns
be effective or that the combinations be free from all flaws. Claim 1 recites
(1) a display that depicts a two dimensional matrix with tiles corresponding
overall program ratings, tiles corresponding to specific program content
indications and that can depict highlighting of tiles; and (2) a “means for
blocking or allowing viewing. . .based on. . .program ratings and specific
content ratings. . .corresponding to the highlighted tiles.” (emphasis added).
As claimed, claim 1 does not require that the “means for blocking” be able
to block all tiles that might be highlighted – only that it be able to block
“based on” rows and columns corresponding to highlighted tiles.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) representative claim 1; (2) claim 11 for similar reasons; and (3) claims 2-
5, 7-10, 12, and 13 not separately argued with particularity.
Claim 6
We also sustain the rejection of claim 6 because Appellant contends it
“is not obvious for all the reasons already discussed, above, with respect to
claims 1 and 11.” App. Br. 24.
CONCLUSIONS
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 is affirmed.

Appeal 2013-003427
Reexamination Control 90/011,528 and 90/011,550 (Merged)
Patent 6,701,523 B1

20
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

PATENT OWNER:
LAURENCE S. ROGERS
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 RANDOM HILLS ROAD
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413