Ex Parte Cave et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2017

13328927 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2017)

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.
13/328,927 12/16/2011 Mark Cave 20004/78312US01 2331
81905 7590 08/21/2017
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SUN, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2017 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):
j flight @ hfzlaw. com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
docketing@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK CAVE and JOSEPH VOLPATTI
Appeal 2015-004789
Application 13/328,9271
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 4, 13 through 15, 24 through
27, and 36 through 43, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nielsen Company
(US), LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004789
Application 13/328,927
INVENTION
This invention is directed to a method to monitor a media device via a
universal serial bus (“USB”) port. See Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method to monitor a media device comprising:
obtaining a voltage output value corresponding to a
voltage output by a universal serial bus port of the media device;
determining if the voltage output value exceeds a
threshold;
if the voltage output value exceeds the threshold,
determining the media device is in an on state and crediting an
audience as exposed to media; and
if the voltage output value does not exceed the threshold,
determining the media device is in an off state and not crediting
the audience as exposed to the media.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 13 through 15, 24
through 27, 38, and 41 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wurzburg (US 7,433,990 B2, Oct. 7, 2008) and Katagiri (US 6,389,544
Bl, May 14,2002). Ans. 2-7.2
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief, dated October 23,
2014; the Reply Brief dated March 23, 2015; the Final Office Action mailed
January 29, 2014; and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 21, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-004789
Application 13/328,927
The Examiner has rejected claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wurzburg, Katagiri, and Kung (US
6,633,635 B2, Oct. 14, 2003). Ans. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claim 1 recites a limitation directed to crediting an
audience as exposed to media or not crediting the audience as exposed to the
media, which is not taught by the combination of Wurzburg and Katagiri
App. Br. 6. Further, Appellants argue the Examiner’s “conclusory statement
that ‘crediting or not crediting an audience being exposed to the media of the
media device does not really add anything to the claims’” shows the
Examiner failed to consider this limitation. App Br. 7—8.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner states
although the invention may be related to determining if an
audience is exposed to media or not, the claim language does not
include any means / method / structures for making such a
determination of an audience being credited with exposure or
not. Rather, the claim language links the determination of
whether an audience is credited as exposed to media or not
whether or not the device is in an ON or OFF state.
Answer 11.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. We concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments. Claim 1 recites “if the voltage output value
exceeds the threshold, determining the media device is in an on state and
crediting an audience as exposed to media” and alternatively not crediting
the audience as exposed to the media during other conditions. The limitation
directed to “crediting an audience as exposing to media,” is an action
3
Appeal 2015-004789
Application 13/328,927
performed if the voltage exceeds the threshold, and as the Examiner
explains, the claim does not recite performing any action based upon the
crediting. Paragraph 29 of Appellants’ Specification describes “crediting”
as indicating the result of the determination that the media device is on (i.e.,
it is a proxy for the data indicating the device is on). Further, while the
Specification also discusses using “crediting” in conjunction with audience
measurement data, this is not claimed. Specification 29. Thus, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “crediting” in light of the Specification
encompasses indicating that a media device is on.
Applying this interpretation of “crediting,” we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Wurzburg and Katagiri teach crediting or
not crediting an audience as exposed to media. We note that Wurzburg
teaches monitoring a monitor (media device) to determine if it is on and
providing an indication of the monitor’s on/off state to a USB media
controller (which as discussed above meets “crediting”). See, e.g.,
Wurzburg col. 4,11. 40—60. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1,
or claims 2 through 4, 13 through 15, 24 through 27, 38, and 41 through 43,
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 36, 37, 39, and 40. Accordingly, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 4, 13
through 15, 24 through 27, and 36 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2015-004789
Application 13/328,927
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5