Ex Parte Candelore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12688681 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/688,681 01115/2010 Brant L. Candelore
36738 7590 09/26/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200802587.01 4127
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANT L. CANDELORE
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5 and 7-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to parental control for a mixed viewing
audience using shutter glasses. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for implementing parental control using a plurality
of pairs of shutter glasses, comprising:
a digital device to receive a program being a stream
content including viewable content being a scene of the program,
the digital device including:
a data processing unit to decode the scene during
playback, decoding the scene includes determining if the scene
includes objectionable content that exceeds a plurality of preset
ratings on a scene-by-scene basis, the plurality of preset ratings
including a first preset rating and a second preset rating, the first
preset rating being lower than the second preset rating, and a
transmitter coupled to the data processing unit, the transmitter to
send a plurality of synchronization signals, the plurality of
synchronization signals including a first synchronization signal
to identify that the data processing unit determines that the scene
includes objectionable content exceeding the first preset rating
and a second synchronization signal to identify that the data
processing unit determines that the scene includes objectionable
content exceeding the second preset rating, the second preset
rating being set a higher rating than the first preset rating; and
a plurality of pairs of shutter glasses controlled by the
digital device to enable contemporaneous viewing of the
program with different frames of the digital content being
blocked by different pairs of shutter glasses, the plurality of pairs
of shutter glasses including a first pair of shutter glasses and a
second pair of shutter glasses, the first pair of shutter glasses
includes a first shutter that is adapted to block the objectionable
2
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
content within the scene of the program exceeding the first preset
rating based on receipt of the first synchronization signal and the
second pair of shutter glasses includes a second shutter that is
adapted to block the objectionable content within the scene of the
program exceeding the second preset rating while allowing
visibility of content exceeding the first preset rating and ailing to
exceed the second preset rating based on receipt of the second
synchronization signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Narayanaswami
Candelore et al.
US 6,188,442 Bl
US 2006/0130119 Al
REJECTION
Feb. 13,2001
June 15, 2006
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 7-21under35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Candelore and Narayanaswami. Non-Final Act.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief, and we concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends, although Narayanaswami enables each viewer to
view only his or her selected channel, there is no disclosure of shutter
3
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
glasses that are adapted for scene-by-scene display. App. Br. 6. The
Examiner responds, characterizing Appellant's argument as an attack on the
references individually instead of based on the combination of Candelore
and Narayanaswami as applied. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Candelore
describes a parental control system which substitutes replacement content
for objectionable content so as to create programing with multiple versions
having different content and ratings with individual scenes blocked based on
an assigned parental rating. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds
Narayanaswami discloses a display monitor which, when viewed through
shutter glasses, provides viewer selection of video channels on a single
display. Id. According to the Examiner, Narayanaswami teaches allowing
multiple individuals to view different content on the same display such that,
in combination with Candelore' s system of parental control, would have
taught or suggested to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention the
disputed limitations of claim 1. Non-final Act. 7-10.
We agree with the Examiner. Nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Narayanaswami teaches
providing individual viewers with customized programming using shutter
glasses and Candelore teaches parental control that selectively blocks
content on a scene-by-scene basis dependent upon the rating of the scene
content and permissions granted to the viewer. See Narayanaswami
Abstract; col. 6, 11. 55---col. 7, 11. 3 8; Candelore i-fi-129, 34. Based on the
combined teachings ofNarayanaswami and Candelore, we agree with the
Examiner that the prior art teaches or suggests using shutter glasses to
4
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
selectively provide content to one of a plurality of viewers (i.e., blocking
objectionable content matter to a particular viewer in favor of substituted
content) based on whether, on a scene-by-scene basis, content exceeds a
rating viewable by a respective viewer. See Non-Final Act. 10.
Appellant's argument that Narayanaswami's shutter glasses are not
adapted for scene-by-scene display (App. Br. 6) is unpersuasive because
such argument ignores Candelore' s disclosure of substituting content based
on objectionable content matter on a scene-by-scene basis (Candelore i-f 51 ).
Similarly, Appellant's argument that the combination of Candelore and
Narayanaswami fails to teach a plurality of shutter glasses as claimed (App.
Br. 6) is also unpersuasive because it ignores Narayanaswami's disclosure of
multiple viewers, each having shutter glasses (Narayanaswami Fig. 1; col. 2,
11. 7-10; col. 4, 11. 32--49) which, when combined with Candelore's teaching
of blocking certain objectionable content, teaches or suggest the disputed
plurality of shutter glasses required by claim 1. Likewise, Appellant's
argument that the combination of Candelore and Narayanaswami fails to
teach selectively (i) blocking content within a scene based on whether the
scene exceeds a second preset rating but (ii) allowing viewing if the scene
only exceeds a first present rating but not a second based on receipt of a
second synchronization signal is equally unpersuasive because it ignores
N arayanaswami' s disclosure of multiple synchronization signals
(N arayanaswami col. 5, 11. 19--49) and Candelore' s disclosure of multiple
age-based rating levels G, PG, PG-13, Rand NC-17 (Candelore i-f 95)
whereby a viewer may be allowed to view content exceeding a first preset
rating (e.g., G) but is blocked from viewing content exceeding a second
rating (e.g., PG.) See also, Ans. 3.
5
Appeal2015-001813
Application 12/688,681
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant has not demonstrated the
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Candelore and Narayanaswami
together with the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-19, and 21 which are
not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6