Ex Parte Faenger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201512536220 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/536,220 08/05/2009 Jens Faenger 1576-1568 2916 10800 7590 09/18/2015 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER VU, TOAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2015 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 JENS FAENGER and ZHONGNAN SHEN ____________ Appeal 2013-005755 Application 12/536,2201 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claim 14. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 21–27 are pending and rejected and claims 3 and 15–20 are cancelled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-005755 Application 12/536,220 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to operating an entertainment system. Abstract. Claim 14, the only appealed claim, depends from claims 8 and 13, and these claims are set forth below: 8. A method of operating an entertainment system, said method comprising the computer-implemented steps of: accessing a source of audio/video content, the source being capable of providing a plurality of media items; determining a corresponding classification for each of the items; providing a respective cell representation for each of the classifications on a display of the entertainment system; sensing a plurality of the cells being selected by a user in a sequential order; in response to the sensing, playing ones of the media items having classifications corresponding to the selected cells, the media items being played in an order of their cells in the sequential order; detecting how frequently each of the cells are selected; and in response to the detecting, providing each of the cells with a respective size corresponding to how frequently the cell is selected. 13. The method of claim 8 wherein the source of audio/video content comprises a radio, the media items including a plurality of radio stations within reception range of the radio. Appeal 2013-005755 Application 12/536,220 3 14. The method of claim 13 comprising the further step of enabling the user to set a time period that each of the media items are played before automatically switching to playing a next one of the media in the sequential order. App. Br. 12–13 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, and 21–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jobs et al. (US 2008/0122796 A1, May 29, 2008) and Stifelman (US 2010/0159909 A1, Jun. 24, 2010). Final Act. 2. Claims 7 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jobs and Sakai et al. (US 2008/0086687 A1, Apr. 10, 2008). Final Act. 5. Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jobs, Stifelman, and Sakai. Final Act. 6. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jobs, Stifelman, and Herley at al. (US 2004/0260682 A1, Dec. 23, 2004). Final Act. 9. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jobs, Stifelman, and Ratliff et al. (US 2007/0244903 A1, Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS The rejection of claim 14 Appellants argue Herley does not teach the limitation “enabling the user to set a time period that each of the media items are played before automatically switching to playing a next one of the media in the sequential order.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2013-005755 Application 12/536,220 4 The Examiner finds Herley teaches this limitation by switching frequencies automatically for predetermined periods at predetermined intervals and teaches switching between radio broadcast streams at predetermined intervals. Final Act. 9–10 (citing ¶24 and claim 32). The Examiner presents additional findings regarding the user interaction with the query and concludes the “user is able to interact with the user interface to set a timeframe to play a commercial.” Ans. 12–13 (citing ¶¶ 12, 161, 14, 19, 3, 33). According to Appellants, “Herley merely discloses that frequencies are automatically switched for predetermined periods at predetermined intervals” and “is completely silent as to a user being able to set either the predetermined periods or the predetermined intervals, as required by claim 14.” App. Br.10. Regarding the Examiner’s additional findings, Appellants argue the “cited passages are completely silent as to a user setting a time period that each of media items are played.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue: Paragraph [0031] discloses that it is the system, not the user, that gathers statistics. More to the point, paragraph [0033] makes clear that the user merely poses queries that are of interest to him. The user does not in any way have the ability to set a time period in which media items are played, as required by claim 14. Reply Br. 4. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has not shown Herley teaches “enabling the user to set a time period.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. 2 It appears the Examiner intended to refer to ¶ 2. Appeal 2013-005755 Application 12/536,220 5 In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 21–27. Appellants present no arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 21– 27 and state these claims are withdrawn from consideration. App. Br. 6. We find no record these claims have been cancelled and, therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2012). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14 is reversed and the decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 21–27 is summarily 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-IN-PART dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation