Ex Parte Feder et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311649427 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) 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. 11/649,427 01/03/2007 Adam Feder 60097-0398 6516 29989 7590 09/26/2013 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP 1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD FLOOR 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER ALATA, YASSIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 ADAM FEDER, BRIAN BEACH and WIJNAND VAN STAM ____________ Appeal 2011-004159 Application 11/649,427 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24-31. Claims 1-11 and 13-23 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a customized rating system for use in a DVR which may be modified by multiple users in collaboration. See Specification 44, Abstract. Appeal 2011-004159 Application 11/649,427 2 Claim 12 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 12. A method for rating an entity based on a customized rating system, the method comprising: receiving a rating system definition that a first user submitted via a user interface at a first client device, wherein the rating system definition comprises two or more ratings; receiving a request to associate an entity with at least one particular rating of the two or more ratings; and in response to receiving the request, storing, on storage at a server device, an association between the entity and the particular rating; receiving, at a second client device, from a second user who is separate from the first user, a request to modify the rating system definition; and in response to the request to modify the rating system definition, modifying the rating system definition based on user input received from the second user; wherein the step of modifying the rating system comprises at least one of (a) deleting a single rating from the two or more ratings, thereby causing the rating system definition to have fewer ratings that can be used to rate entities, and (b) modifying a single existing rating of the two or more ratings, thereby causing the rating system definition to consist of a set of ratings that are different than a set of ratings that the rating system consisted of prior to said modifying. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Conradt US 2007/0204287 A1 Aug. 30, 2007 (Filed Feb. 28, 2006) Plastina US 2006/0288041 A1 Dec. 21, 2006 Appeal 2011-004159 Application 11/649,427 3 Das US 6,493,688 B1 Dec. 10, 2002 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 25, and 27-31under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Conradt and Plastina. Ans. 3-9.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Conradt, Plastina and Das. Ans. 9-10. ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Conradt and Plastina, collectively, show or suggest the modification of a rating system by at least one of (a) “deleting a single rating from two or more ratings, thereby causing the rating system to have fewer ratings,” and, (b) “modifying a single existing rating of two or more ratings, thereby causing the rating system to consist of a set of ratings that are different than a set of ratings the rating system consisted of prior to said modifying,” as set forth in independent claim 12 with similar language in independent claim 31. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-10) that the Examiner has erred. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2010; and, the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 1, 2010. Appeal 2011-004159 Application 11/649,427 4 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-10), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 10-14). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. Appellants argue that their claimed invention, as set forth within representative claim 12, permits a rating system definition to be changed, collaboratively, by deleting or modifying a rating so that the rating system definition either includes fewer ratings or includes different ratings. Appellants argue that modification of a rating system definition in this manner is not shown or suggested by Conradt or Plastina, either separately or collectively. Br. 5-6. The Examiner finds that Conradt discloses combining rating systems and that Plastina discloses a system that permits a user to modify a rating by replacing, overriding, combining, revising, changing and updating a rating. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner cites Conradt at paragraph 0021, which describes how a group of scientists “may rate how accurately various programs having a scientific theme accurately portray scientific ideas” or how a group of train enthusiasts “may rate programs based on how often trains appear in the programs, and descriptively, what types of trains.” Ans. 4. We find it is beyond cavil that the rating system of Conradt, described above, changes the rating definition system of Conradt to include different ratings by expressly permitting the diverse groups described therein to rate Appeal 2011-004159 Application 11/649,427 5 programs consistent with their particular group interests. Consequently, the Examiner did not err by finding that the combination of Conradt and Plastina teaches or discloses a rating system which may be collaboratively modified to include different ratings. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12 and 24-31 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 24-31 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 pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation