Ex Parte Bishop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13276833 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/276,833 10/19/2011
27820 7590 05/31/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Bishop
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.
7000-534C 5143
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM BISHOP, M. NEIL HARRINGTON, and
STEVE J. MCKINNON
Appeal2014-008903
Application 13/276,833
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008903
Application 13/276,833
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1--40, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A video display system, comprising:
a user interface operable to receive a user input
requesting information presentation in a user-specified format;
at least one communication interface operable to:
in response to the user input, transmit a request for
information presentation in the user-specified format
over a communications network to a remote source of
requested information; and
receive a video signal and at least one requested
information signal over a communications network from
at least one remote signal source, the at least one
requested information signal comprising information in
the user-specified format;
a video display; and
a control system operable to present the video signal and
the at least one requested information signal in the user-
specified format on the video display.
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-12 and 14--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bangalore (US 2007 /0244688 A 1; published Oct. 18, 2007;
filed Apr. 14, 2006).
2
Appeal2014-008903
Application 13/276,833
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bangalore and Flanagan (US 7, 130, 790 B 1; issued Oct. 31, 2006; filed
Oct. 24, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Section 102 Rejection of Claims 1-12 and 14-40
Appellants contend Bangalore does not describe "at least one
communication interface" operable to both "transmit a request for
information presentation in the user-specified format over a communications
network to a remote source of requested information" and to "receive a
video signal and at least one requested information signal over a
communications network from at least one remote signal source, the at least
one requested information signal comprising information in the user-
specified format" as recited in claim 1. Br. 9-13. In particular, Appellants
contend the processing device 100 disclosed in paragraphs 19, 24, 44, and 45
of Bangalore translates text and outputs a television signal with the
translated text to a television. Br. 12-13. Appellants' contention appears
based on the premise that the processing device does not receive the
translated text and video signal "over a communications network," because
the translation is performed locally by the processing device. However,
Appellants' contention is inconsistent with paragraph 29 of Bangalore,
which discloses that a group of processing devices can perform operations
pertaining to different aspects by communicating with one another over a
network.
Further, Appellants' contention that an interface operable to request
closed caption text in a user-specified language and to receive a video signal
3
Appeal2014-008903
Application 13/276,833
and the closed caption text in the user-specified language over a
communications network was unknown in the prior art is inconsistent with
paragraph 6 in the Background Section of Appellants' Specification.
Additionally, we highlight the scope of claim 1 is broader than
Appellants' contention. For example, the scope of the "requested
information signal" encompasses information requested as text, and the
scope of the "user-specified format" encompasses a closed caption format.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the "requested information
signal comprising information in a user-specified format" as claimed from
the information signal in a closed caption format disclosed by Bangalore.
Appellants contend Bangalore does not disclose synchronizing the
closed caption text with the video signal as required by claims 10-12 and
18-20. Br. 14--15. The Examiner finds synchronizing closed caption text
with video is inherent in the method and system of Bangalore. Ans. 5---6.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner's finding.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Section 103 Rejection of Claim 13
Appellants contend Flanagan does not remedy the deficiency of
Bangalore with respect to claim 1. Br. 15. However, Appellants' contention
is inconsistent with the Title, Abstract, Figure 4, and columns 1 and 3 of
Flanagan. For example, Flanagan teaches that a server translates closed
caption data in real-time (col. 1, 11. 58---60) and transmits the closed caption
data and video program to a television over a network so that a viewer can
4
Appeal2014-008903
Application 13/276,833
read the closed caption data in his or her preferred language as the television
program is broadcast (col. 1, 11. 48-52; col. 3, 11. 5-32). We find the
teachings of Flanagan are cumulative to the teachings of Bangalore, and
agree with the Examiner that an interface operable to request text in a user-
specified language, and to receive a video signal along with the requested
text in the user-specified language, was known in the prior art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1--40 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5