Ex Parte BADT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

11941082 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111941,082
81352
RGIPLLC
7590
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/16/2007 SIG HAROLD BADT JR.
09/29/2016
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
801056 9017
EXAMINER
1103 Twin Creeks CHAE, KYU
Allen, TX 75013
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
michele.zarinelli@gmail.com
patentpatent@gmail.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIG HAROLD BADT JR.
Appeal2015-006517
Application 11/941,082
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-23, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "relates to providing a
program content stream to a user on a network," in particular, "to providing
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006517
Application 11/941,082
commercial content in a program content stream on an [Internet Protocol
Tele Vision] IPTV network in a manner to thwart a commercial remover."
Spec. i-f 1.2 The Specification explains that "[t ]he commercial remover stores
the program content without the commercials on a recording device" so the
"user can then view the program stripped of its commercials at a later time."
Id. i-f 5. Inserting or "splicing in spurious or fake commercials" may cause
the commercial remover to "inadvertently remove program portions while
leaving in commercial content," thus rendering "[t]he commercial remover
... unattractive for use by the viewer." Id. i-f 36.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A method of processing program content, the method
compnsmg:
processing a first program content stream to retrieve at
least one of a first program content portion, a second program
content portion and a third program content portion and
processing a second content stream to retrieve any of the first
program content portion, the second program content portion
and the third program content portion not retrieved from the
first program content stream;
splicing together the first program content stream and the
second program content stream to combine the first program
content portion, the second program content portion and the
third program content portion;
2 This decision employs the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed November 16, 2007; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed June 6, 2014; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
December 3, 2014; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed April 23,
2015; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed June 23, 2015.
2
Appeal2015-006517
Application 11/941,082
creating at least one detectable artifact undetectable by a
viewer of a program and placing the at least one detectable
artifact in between the first program content portion and the
second program content portion such that the at least one
detectable artifact is contiguous with the first program content
portion and contiguous with the second program content
portion, wherein the at least one detectable artifact is placed
during the splicing of the first program content stream and the
second program content stream; and
creating at least one additional detectable artifact
undetectable by a viewer and placing the at least one additional
detectable artifact in between the second program content
portion and the third program content portion such that the at
least one detectable artifact is contiguous with the second
program content portion and contiguous with the third program
content portion, wherein the placing the at least one additional
artifact is performed during the splicing of the first program
content stream and the second program content stream.
App. Br. 58-59 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Re} ections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Levy
Smith
Lienhart et al.
("Lienhart")
Schiller et al.
("Schiller")
US 2003/0192060 Al
US 2005/0185919 Al
US 2006/0248569 Al
US 2007 /0055984 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 9, 2003
Aug.25,2005
Nov. 2, 2006
Mar. 8, 2007
Claims 1---6 and 8-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith and Lienhart. Final Act. 4--13; App. Br. 2, 12.
3
Appeal2015-006517
Application 11/941,082
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Smith, Lienhart, and Levy. Final Act. 13-14; App. Br. 2, 12.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smith, Lienhart, and Schiller. Final Act. 14; App. Br. 2, 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-23 in light of
Appellant's assertions that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant's assertions regarding error by the
Examiner.
The Rejection of Claims 1-6 and 8-22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent Claims 1, 1 7, and 19
Claim 1 recites a "first program content stream" and a "second
program content stream" and requires "splicing together the first program
content stream and the second program content stream" to combine content
portions from the two streams. App. Br. 58 (Claims App.). Claim 1 also
requires "artifacts" placed between certain combined content portions and
specifies that artifact insertion occurs during splicing. Id. at 58-59.
Claims 17 and 19 include similar limitations. Id. at 7-11, 23-3 7 ("as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19"), 62-64.
Figure 7 (reproduced below) illustrates the result of splicing and
artifact insertion. Spec. i-fi-121, 30.
45
~ 71 '') 72 >
73
<
\ Pr