Ex Parte Bowes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13564024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/564,024 08/01/2012 Robert David Bowes
23550 7590 09/14/2016
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
ALBANY, NY 12207
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.
LWD-0001-US 5804
EXAMINER
PARK, GRACE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT DAVID BOWES
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellant's invention relates to "methods, systems, and program
products for managing information, including the incremental release of
information from a restricted database of information." Abstract. Claims 1,
11, 16, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method of incrementally disclosing information from a
restricted database of information, the method comprising:
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
accessing a restricted database of information containing:
a first piece of information; and
a second piece of information related to the first
piece of information;
releasing from the restricted database the first piece of
information; and
releasing from the restricted database the second piece of
information consistent with the relationship between the second
piece of information and the first piece of information.
See App. Br. 9 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kandekar et al. (US 2010/0077435 Al; published Mar. 25, 2010)
("Kandekar"). See Final Act. 4--7.
ISSUES
The issues that Appellant's contentions present are as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kandekar discloses "releasing
from the restricted database the second piece of information consistent with
the relationship between the second piece of information and the first piece
of information," as claim 1 recites?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kandekar discloses "accessing a
restricted database of information," as claim 1 recites?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kandekar discloses "defining a
relationship between the first piece of information and the second piece of
information," as claim 21 recites?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kandekar discloses "wherein
2
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
defining the relationship includes defining a logical relationship between the
second piece of information and the first piece of information," as claim 4
recites?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and explanations in light
of Appellant's arguments and contentions. We agree with the Examiner's
findings and explanations and we adopt them as our own. The following
discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis.
Claims 1, 5-11, 14-16, 19, and 20
The Examiner found that in Kandekar, when a user fast forwards
through too much content by mistake, a media player detects that a spoiler
segment is approaching and avoids showing the spoiler segment to the user.
See Final Act. 4 (citing Kandekar i-f 59). According to the Examiner,
because "the approaching segment is only avoided if it is considered to be a
spoiler segment, ... the approaching segment is shown to the user
otherwise." Ans. 3. The Examiner further explained that the approaching
segment ("second piece of information") and a segment played previously
("the first piece of information"), "are related to each other because the
previous segment comes before the approaching segment in the video." Id.
Based on these findings and explanations, the Examiner found that Kandekar
discloses "releasing from the restricted database the second piece of
information consistent with the relationship between the second piece of
information and the first piece of information," as claim 1 recites. See id.;
Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
Appellant contends Kandekar does not disclose "releasing ... the
second piece of information" because "Kandekar's method avoids
displaying a spoiler segment (or offensive material or any other pre-defined
segment) regardless of whether or not any other segment has or has not been
displayed to a user." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted); see App. Br. 4.
We find Appellant's contention unpersuasive. The fact that
Kandekar's media player, when fast forwarding in trick play mode, avoids
showing an approaching segment if it is a spoiler also implies that
Kandekar's media player would show an approaching spoiler segment if it
were playing at normal speed, i.e., not fast forwarding. See Kandekar i-fi-158-
59; Ans. 3; accord App. Br. 4 ("Kandekar appears ... to allow a user access
to everything it contains."); see also In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA
1968) ("[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom."). Therefore, contrary to
Appellant's contentions, Kandekar discloses "releasing ... the second piece
of information."
This disclosure of Kandekar is also "consistent with the relationship
between" the approaching and previous segments. As found by the
Examiner, segments have a relationship between each other because each
segment is part of the same media item and has a unique playback starting
point relative to other segments within a playback sequence. See Ans. 3, 5;
Kandekar i-fi-1 30, 59. Accordingly, by playing the approaching segment after
a previous segment of the same media item, Kandekar discloses releasing an
approaching segment "consistent with the relationship" as claim 1 recites.
See Ans. 3, 5; Kandekar i-fi-130, 59. These disclosures of Kandekar are
4
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
consistent with the plain language of the claims in view of Appellant's
Specification, which discloses that pieces of information are all part of one
story and can have a uni-directional relationship between each other, where
one piece of information must be revealed prior to another piece of
information. See Appellant's Spec. 8:18-9:4, 13:3-23; Fig. 4.
Appellant further contends "there is no suggestion that anything in
Kandekar's content source or metadata source is restricted to the user. In
fact, ... Kandekar appears ... to allow a user access to everything it
contains." App. Br. 4. Appellant argues that "[r]ather than restricting a
user's access to the content source, Kandekar bypasses display of certain
data within the content source when using the media trick play function 26."
Id.
We disagree with Appellant. As found by the Examiner, Kandekar's
content source stores media items including spoiler and inappropriate
content the user may want to specifically avoid. See Ans. 4; Kandekar
i-fi-126, 28. Kandekar' s media trick play function identifies the spoiler or
inappropriate content (for example, by obtaining metadata tags identifying
potentially objectionable content or analyzing the media item directly) and
instructs the media player to avoid showing this content to the user, i.e.,
restricts access to the content. See Kandekar i-fi-126, 28, 29, 54, 59.
Accordingly, consistent with the Examiner's findings, Kandekar's content
source is a "restricted database" because it identifies spoiler and
inappropriate content, which can lead Kandekar' s media trick play function
to "restrict[]" the media player from showing this content to the user when in
fast forward operation.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
5
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Kandekar.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of
independent claims 11 and 16, and dependent claims 5-10, 14--16, 19, and
20, for which Appellant does not present separate particularized arguments.
See App. Br. 3-8; Reply Br. 1-2.
Claims 2-4, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21
Appellant contends Kandekar does not disclose "defining a
relationship between the first piece of information and the second piece of
information," as claim 21 recites (and as claims 2, 12, and 17 similarly
recite), and "wherein defining the relationship includes defining a logical
relationship," as claim 4 recites (and as claims 13 and 18 similarly recite).
See App. Br. 6-8. We disagree. First, for the same reasons we discussed for
the "consistent with the relationship" limitation of claim 1, we find that
Kandekar discloses "defining a relationship between the first piece of
information and the second piece of information." See discussion of claim 1
above. Second, contrary to Appellant's contentions, the relationship
between Kandekar's previous and approaching segments is "logical"
because both segments are part of the same media item and the media player
shows the segments in a particular sequence; that is, the media player shows
the approaching segment after the previous segment, and the previous
segment before the approaching segment. See Ans. 3, 5; Kandekar i-fi-130,
59. These disclosures of Kandekar are consistent with the plain language of
the claims in view of Appellant's Specification, which discloses that pieces
of information are all part of one story and can have uni-directional
relationships between each other. See Appellant's Spec. 8: 18-9:4, 13:3-23;
6
Appeal2015-007001
Application 13/564,024
Fig. 4.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21 over
Kandekar. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 12, 13, 17,
18, and 21, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 3, for which
Appellant does not present separate particularized arguments. See App. Br.
3-8; Reply Br. 1-2.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 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) (2013).
See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(±), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
7