Ex Parte Carlsgaard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

11865382 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/865,382 10/01/2007 Eric Stephen Carlsgaard TTEUS06020 5195
37106 7590 06/27/2014
FLETCHER YODER P.C.
P.O. Box 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC STEPHEN CARLSGAARD
and
MARK GILMORE MEARS
____________

Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to methods and devices for
blocking potentially objectionable content (POC) from live or broadcast
television, recorded media, etc. (App. Br. 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of displaying video content, comprising:
receiving input into a memory at a control logic feature,
wherein the input includes a type of POC that is to be filtered
when displaying the video content on the display;
receiving a video signal at a signal source input, wherein
the video signal contains the video content and an indication of
a location on the display of POC for a frame of the video
content and a type of the POC at the location; and
using a processor to filter display of content identified by
the indication of the location on the display of the POC for the
frame of the video content and the type of the POC at the
location when the type of POC at the location corresponds to
the type of POC that is to be filtered when displaying the video
content.

REFERENCE and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Jarman (US 2006/0031870 A1; Feb. 9, 2006).

Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 25 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds claim 20 is indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim Appellants’ invention as the claimed “means
for” does not have corresponding structure in Appellants’ Specification
(Ans. 10-11; 21-23). We agree.
As the Examiner finds, there is no corresponding structure in the
Specification. Rather, the means for filtering display of content is merely a
“processor for” filtering display of content, as asserted by Appellants (Reply
Br. 4) and not a display itself.
Appellants assert an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand, for
example, “that ‘means for filtering display of content . . .’ may include the
processor . . . and other related features . . . which may be stored in memory”
(App. Br. 8).
The Federal Circuit has held that “[i]n a means-plus-function claim in
which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed
to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose
computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform
the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d
1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The court elaborated on this point in Aristocrat
Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.:
In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in
which the inventor has invoked means-plus-function claiming,
this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed
in the specification be more than simply a general purpose
computer or microprocessor. The point of the requirement that
the patentee disclose particular structure in the specification and
that the scope of the patent claims be limited to that structure
Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382

4
and its equivalents is to avoid pure functional claiming. . . .
Because general purpose computers can be programmed to
perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply
disclosing a computer as the structure designated to perform a
particular function does not limit the scope of the claim to “the
corresponding structure, material, or acts” that perform the
function, as required by section 112, paragraph 6.
521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Most recently, in Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., the court
reiterated that “[w]hen dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-
implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ we require the specification to
disclose the algorithm for performing the function.” 708 F.3d 1310, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, under Federal Circuit case law the corresponding
structure of a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim is a general
purpose computer executing the algorithm which becomes a special purpose
computer. This requires Appellants to disclose a particular algorithm that
creates the special purpose computer.
As no algorithms are recited in Appellants’ Specification and there is
no corresponding structure other than the processor, claim 20 is indefinite as
it would not have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what structure
claim 20 requires for performing the recited functions. Thus, Appellants
have “‘failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as
required by the second paragraph of section 112.’” Blackboard, Inc. v.
Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re
Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20
as indefinite.

Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382

5
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants contend Jarman filters an entire series of multimedia
content and does not disclose, among other things, “receiving data about a
‘display location,’” skipping frames (not the same as blocking portion of a
frame) (App. Br. 14), and receiving a location on the display of a POC
(Reply Br. 5). Appellants contend there is a difference between blocking an
entire scene and blocking content at a location including POC (App. Br.
15-16) and also urge there is a difference between cropping a scene and
blocking content (App. Br. 16). Appellants further assert the Examiner’s
inherency argument in finding Jarman’s “removing a portion of a frame
from view by cropping” is the same as identifying a POC with an indication
of its location is improper (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5). We do not agree.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 11-14 and 23-29)
and provide the following for emphasis.
As the Examiner finds, Jarman discloses blocking not only an entire
scene, but also a portion of scene in a viewing frame and adjusting and
resizing on a frame-by-frame basis (Ans. 25-26; Jarman ¶¶ 76-77). We also
agree reframing and resizing cannot be performed without identifying the
location on the display (Ans. 26). We note the claims do not recite only part
of a frame is objectionable as Appellants contend. Rather, the claims recite
there is an indication of a location on the display of POC for a frame. An
indication of POC can broadly include not only portion of the frame, but the
entire frame as taught and suggested by Jarman. Claim 1 also merely recites
filtering display content, but does not recite how the filtering is performed,
thus any form of filtering could be employed.
Appeal 2011-011296
Application 11/865,382

6
As to Appellants’ asserted inherency argument, Appellants merely
assert the Examiner is using inherency. Rather, as noted above, the
Examiner is stating the location of the display must be known in order to
crop or resize. This corresponds to Appellants’ indication of a location on a
display.
With respect to the dependent claims and the recitation of “blurring”
and different levels of filtering, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 26-
29). We further note, paragraph 75 of Jarman discloses “fading,”
“incremental filtering,” and various intensities.
Thus, in light of the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of
the contested claim language, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
finding Jarman anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc