Ex Parte Coppens et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2011

11190832 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOON COPPENS,
LIEVEN LEOPOLD ALBERTINE TRAPPENIERS,
MARC BRUNO FRIEDA GODON, KOEN HANDEKYN,
RONY ALFONS MARIA BAEKELAND, SIGURD VAN BROECK,
HENDRIK EUGENE IRENE NICOLAS DACQUIN,
JAN LODE MIA MOONS, ARJEN HENDRIKSE,
and JAN ALFONS ALBERT BOUWEN
____________

Appeal 2010-010594
Application 11/190,832
Technology Center 2400
_____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final Rejection of
claims 1-8. See Appeal Brief 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

Appeal 2010-010594
Application 11/190,832

2
Exemplary Claim
1. A multimedia distribution system comprising a plurality of content
providers (CP: CP1, CP2) adapted to broadcast multimedia data to an end-
user (TV, STB) via a content selector (CS) controlled by said end-user to
receive multimedia data (MD) from a selected one of said content providers,
said system further comprising a user behavior analyzer (UBA: E(w),
F(x)) to which said end-user is coupled and that is adapted to analyze the
behavior of said end-user,
characterized in that said multimedia distribution system further
comprises a plurality of additional content providers (ACP: ACP1-ACP3)
adapted to broadcast second multimedia data to said end-user (TV, STB) via
a second content selector (ACS) and a multimedia data combiner (H(z)),
in that said multimedia data combiner is adapted to combine said
second multimedia data with the first mentioned multimedia data into a
combined multimedia data signal (CMD) transmitted to said end-user,
and in that said second content selector is controlled by an
opportunities selector (G(y)) having as input control signals received from
said user behavior analyzer (UBA) and from said additional content
providers.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0188308 A1 to Kizuka
(“Kizuka”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0101451 A1 to Bentolila
(“Bentolila”).

Appeal 2010-010594
Application 11/190,832

3
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that there are: (1) no teaching or suggestion in the
cited references of “„a plurality of content providers‟” (Appeal Brief 9); (2)
that the Examiner is reading the opportunities selector on the advertising
contents distributing management apparatus 4 of Kizuka as well as the
second content selector (Appeal Brief 10); (3) there is no teaching of “„a
content selector,‟” (Appeal Brief 11); (4) the claimed content selector cannot
read on the set-top box of Kizuka since in the claimed invention the
multimedia data from the content selector CS is combined with the second
multimedia data prior to being transmitted to the end-user, while the set top
is already at the end-user‟s location (Appeal Brief 11); and (5) Appellants
further argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not address the
deficiencies of Kizuka with Bentolila because Kizuka already discloses the
ability to transmit the type of content that the user wants to have access to
“„a user behavior analyzer‟” and therefore one would not be motivated to
modify Kizuka when it already possesses the benefit of the proposed
modification (Appeal Brief 12-13).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2010-010594
Application 11/190,832

4
KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-8 over the combination of
Kizuka and Bentolila?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner‟s rejections in light of Appellants‟
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We find the Appellants‟ arguments in regard to Kizuka‟s disclosure of
“„a user behavior analyzer‟” persuasive and therefore we agree that
modifying Kizuka‟s invention with the teachings of Bentolila is redundant
since Kizuka essentially discloses “„a user behavior analyzer.‟” See Appeal
Brief 12-13. More importantly, Bentolila does not address the deficiencies
of Kizuka noted by the Appellants. Appeal Brief 9-13; Reply Brief 5-10.
Appellants argue that it is clear from the claims that the advertising
contents distributing management apparatus (4) of Kizuka cannot be both
the claimed content selector ACS and the claimed opportunities selector
G(y) as the Examiner indicated. Appeal Brief 10. The Examiner contends
that the Appellants erroneously interpreted the rejection by reading the
opportunity selector (G(y)) and the second content selector ACS on
Kizuka‟s advertising contents distribution management apparatus 4. Answer
11. However, Appellants replicate the portions of the Examiner‟s rejection
wherein the Examiner indicated that the “distribution management apparatus
4” reads on both second content selector and opportunity selector G(y).
Reply Brief 6-7. The Examiner attempts to remedy the discrepancy by
Appeal 2010-010594
Application 11/190,832

5
asserting that the claimed second content selector does not correspond to the
advertising contents distributing management apparatus 4 of Kizuka but
corresponds to the advertising contents storing apparatus 2. Answer 11;
Reply Brief 6-7. Appellants argue that the content storing apparatus is not a
selector, but it is a storage apparatus that stores advertising content. Reply
Brief 7. We find Appellants‟ arguments persuasive. The Examiner failed to
provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning as to why
Bentolila addressed the deficiencies of Kizuka to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR 550 U.S. at 418. Therefore we will not
sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1-8.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

kis