Ex Parte Barnes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

13672662 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/672,662 11/08/2012 Melvin L. Barnes JR.
105758 7590 05/30/2018
Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP
7327 SW Barnes Road #521
Portland, OR 97225-6119
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.
44081/0170 4230
EXAMINER
MONTOYA,OSCHTAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2018 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):
mphillips@lpiplaw.com
docket@lpiplaw.com
mphillips_patlaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEL VIN L. BARNES JR.
Appeal2017-001325 1
Application 13/672,662
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of all pending claims: 1-9 and 11-21. See App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as "Gula Consulting Limited
Liability Company, the assignee of record, which is affiliated with
Intellectual Ventures Management LLC." App. Br. 1.
2 An oral hearing was conducted for this appeal on May 8, 2018.
Appeal2017-001325
Application 13/672,662
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "methods of customizing and
presenting ... broadcast content in the form of audio, video, and text, to a
viewer (i.e., a person)." Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
receiving from a viewing station via a communication
network an interest profile associated with a user, wherein the
interest profile includes data representing a plurality of topics of
interest to the user and the topics of interest relate to broadcast
transmissions;
performing, via a processor, a text-based search for
available broadcast transmissions that match at least one topic of
interest included in the interest profile, wherein performing the
text-based search comprises:
searching for available broadcast transmissions
that match information associated with criteria specified by the
user to generate a data set; and
searching the data set for available broadcast
transmissions that match the at least one topic of interest
included in the interest profile; and
transmitting to the viewing station via the communication
network a list of one or more of the available broadcast
transmissions that match at least one topic of interest included in
the interest profile so that one or more of the available broadcast
transmissions can be selected from the list and presented via the
viewing station.
References and Re} ections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Morrison
Das
US 2002/0073427 Al June 13, 2002
US 6,493,688 Bl Dec. 10, 2002
2
Appeal2017-001325
Application 13/672,662
Ellis
Kohen
Maybury
US 2003/0020744 Al Jan. 30, 2003
US 6,604,239 B 1 Aug. 5, 2003
US 6,961,954 Bl Nov. 1, 2005
Claims 1--4, 6, 11-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis and Morrison. Final Act. 2.
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Ellis, Morrison, and Maybury. Final Act. 9.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellis, Morrison, and Das. Final Act. 10.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellis, Morrison, and Kohen. Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. Any arguments Appellant could have raised but chose not to
raise are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred; we adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
As described by Appellant, independent claim 1 requires a "text-based
search [which] comprises at least two constituent steps. First is 'searching
... to generate a data set.' Subsequent is 'searching the data set ..... "'
App. Br. 6. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Ellis teaches or
suggests such two-stage search because "Figure 15 of Ellis is a list of
examples, not a result of a search." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellant further argues Ellis "depicts only one single search-like
3
Appeal2017-001325
Application 13/672,662
processing step ... to provide results" which "are not searched again." App.
Br. 10.
Appellant's arguments primarily focus on whether Figure 15 of Ellis
relates to a search of broadcast transmissions. See, e.g., App. Br. 6-12.
Appellant, however, does not address the Examiner's findings with respect
to "[t]he whole Ellis reference" for teaching the recited text-based search for
available broadcast transmissions. Ans. 4; see also Ans. 3; Final Act. 3.
Particularly, as cited by the Examiner, Ellis describes the following text-
based search for available broadcast transmissions:
[A] user has run the expression illustrated in FIGS. 9a and 9b,
and has set the user profiles of FIGS. 13a-13f, [so] program guide
server 25 may determine that the movie Armageddon meets the
criteria of the expression that was run, and also meets the criteria
of the current user profile.
Ellis ,r 112; Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Appellant does not provide argument or
evidence to show the Examiner errs in finding Ellis's search methodology,
as described above, teaches or suggests the claim 1 requirements of
generating a data set matching user specified criteria and searching the data
set using a user interest profile. Compare Ellis ,r,r 85-87, 112, with Spec.
,r 140. For at least this reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
rejection is in error.
Additionally, we note the Examiner finds Ellis teaches "defining a
dataset after a profile is set by searching EPG data (figure 15); and searching
the data set to provide results to the user (figures 16a-16c); meeting the
claim language." Ans. 3. Ellis supports this finding by stating the "program
guide may make personalized viewing recommendations based on the
viewing histories, preference profiles, or any suitable combination thereof"
Ellis ,r 111 (emphasis added); see also Ellis ,r,r 115-116, 127. Ellis discloses
4
Appeal2017-001325
Application 13/672,662
that applying a suitable combination of search factors includes
"construct[ing] relational database expressions from the viewing histories
that define expressions for the program categories and ratings for programs
that users have watched, scheduled reminders for, searched for, or ordered
the most," and the program guide server "may then apply user preference
profile criteria to the programs, and generate personal viewing
recommendations." Ellis ,r 111 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ellis
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as obvious in view of
Ellis and Morrison. Appellant advances no further substantive argument on
remaining claims 2-9 and 11-21. See App. Br. 12-14. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5