Ex Parte Coppens et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 10, 201111190832 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation