Ex Parte Bardwil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12287973 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
12/287,973 10/14/2008 Steven Bardwil 0260183 3173
63649 7590 03/29/2017
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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 @ farj ami. com
farj amidocketing @ yahoo, com
ITarj ami @ farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN BARDWIL
Appeal 2015-004579
Application 12/287,973
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8, 10—22, 24, and 25. Claims 9, 23,
26—28 have been canceled. See App. Br. 13—20 (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Disney Enterprises,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004579
Application 12/287,973
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to computer mediated
customization of creative content. Spec. 1. The creative content may be
customizable content that includes a modification library and base content
which may be a presentation-ready content capable of playback without
customization. Spec. 9. A content administrator may use a content
customizing application to identify customization rules coded into the
customizable content, and determine the content modifiers necessary to
produce customized content from the base content, according to
customization criteria associated with a target audience for the customized
content. Id. The customized content may have customized presentation
features such as cultural, geographical, ethnic, architectural, iconographical,
and physiological features familiar to the target audience. Id. Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for producing a customized content from a
customizable content, the method comprising:
identifying the customizable content;
identifying a base content in the customizable content;
receiving at least one customizing criterion as input;
determining a plurality of content modifiers for
harmonizing the base content and the at least one customizing
criterion;
extracting the plurality of content modifiers from a
modification library; and
integrating the plurality of content modifiers with the base
content to produce the customized content having customized
2
Appeal 2015-004579
Application 12/287,973
presentation features corresponding to an ethnicity of a target
audience selected by a customization administrator of the
customized content,
wherein the selection of the ethnicity of the target audience
by the customization administrator alters, according to the
ethnicity of the target audience, one or more features included in
the base content, wherein the one or more features include a
physical appearance of at least one architectural feature in the
base content.
Rejections
Claims 1—8, 10, 11, 13—22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Quinn et al. (US
2010/0241507 Al; published Sept. 23, 2010) (“Quinn”) and Candelore (US
2006/0174264 Al, published Aug. 3, 2006). Final Act. 2-11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Quinn, Candelore, and Crist (US
2009/0240736 Al; published Sept. 24, 2009). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Quinn and Candelore fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the selection of the ethnicity of the target audience
by the customization administrator alters, according to the ethnicity of the
target audience, one or more features included in the base content, wherein
the one or more features include a physical appearance of at least one
architectural feature in the base content,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7—
10; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellant contends Candelore, upon which
the Examiner relies (see Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 5, 13—14) does not teach or
suggest altering a physical appearance of at least one architectural feature in
3
Appeal 2015-004579
Application 12/287,973
the base content, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. According to Appellant,
Candelore, instead, “merely discusses a customization of physical traits or
personal characteristics, such as ‘skin color, hair color, eye color, and sex
(e.g. male or female).’” Id. (citing Candelore 75, 78, 90—92). Appellant
contends Candelore’s teachings of altering “other personal characteristics”
(Candelore 185) refer to a characteristic or trait belonging or relating to a
particular person and not a physical appearance of an architectural feature,
as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9—10.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Candelore teaches of personalized replacement content
that comprises various types of personalization parameters for an
end-user to personalize a program for a user. For example, a
graphical representation for a character of a program can
illustrate a particular age or ethnicity pertaining to a certain target
audience, reading on the fact that features of a person or character
can be altered to reflect the age, ethnicity, etc. of the intended
person or character. In regards to the modification of a physical
appearance of at least one architectural feature in the base
content, paragraph [0094] of Candelore suggests, “ ... an almost
infinite amount of variations to personalize the content of a
program be it audio, visual, cartoons, T.V. shows, static
animation, movie animation, computer programs, or any sort
of audio and/or visual content that is capable of digital
representation can be performed with the previously-described
apparatus and methods ”, reading on the aspect that all content,
including the “static animation”, can be altered based on
personalized content which in turn suggests any customization
can be made to targeted audience. Applicant’s claim language
lacks detail into what the particular architectural features entail
and leave its definition open for interpretation.
Ans. 14.
Having considered the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings in Candelore, we find the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
4
Appeal 2015-004579
Application 12/287,973
findings that show that Candelore teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. The Examiner fails to provide any explanation or reasoning
sufficient to show that because Candelore teaches that an almost infinite
amount of variations to personalize content of a program, including static
animation, can be performed (Candelore 194), Candelore teaches or
suggests altering a physical appearance of at least one architectural feature in
the base content, as required by claim 1. As such, we are constrained by the
record to not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1; independent claims
10 and 17, which recite commensurate limitations; and claims 2—8, 11, 13—
16, 18—22, 24, and 25, which depend from claims 10 and 17.
We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Quinn, Candelore, and Crist because the
Examiner’s application of Crist fails to cure the deficiency in the teachings
of Candelore discussed supra.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10—22, 24, and
25.
REVERSED
5