Ex Parte Bishop et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201613276833 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation