Ex Parte Godar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12990100 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/990,100 08/02/2011 Anthony William Godar DYOUNG 3.3-053 5693
530 7590 03/02/2017
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
eOfficeAction @ ldlkm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY WILLIAM GODAR1
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1, and 3—16, all of the pending claims in the
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc. Br. 1.
2 Claim 2 was cancelled.
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a media recorder and an audiovisual
entertainment system and associated methods including a user detector for
detecting whether a user is attending to the media presentation and a media
status detector for detecting whether the media presentation has ended.
Spec. 2:6—31, Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
1. A media recorder operable to receive broadcast media
data from a media data source, the media recorder comprising:
a storage element operable to store at least a portion of
the broadcast media data received from the media data source;
a receiver operable to receive a sequence of video images
from a video camera via a communications link;
a user detector operable to detect, by analysis of the
sequence of video images received from the video camera via
the communications link, whether a user is attending to a
presentation of the media data by a media data presentation
unit; and
a media presentation status detector operable to detect
whether the presentation of the media item has ended,
in which:
when the user detector detects that the user is not
attending to the presentation of the media data, the user detector
is operable to cause the storage element to store the media data
received from the media data source; and
when the media presentation status detector detects that
presentation of the media item has ended, the media
presentation status detector is operable to cause the media
recorder to enter a stand-by mode;
wherein the user detector is operable to detect whether
the user is attending to the presentation of the media data by
carrying out face detection on the sequence of video images to
determine whether the user is present within a field of view of
2
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
the video camera, the face detection being carried out either on
a part of the sequence of video images that is most likely to
correspond to a position of the user’s head or on a previously
defined image area which has been defined by the user.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3—9, and 11—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Unmehopa (US 2005/0281531 Al), Ishihara (US
7,800,693 B2), and Kellner (US 2007/0150535 Al).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Unmehopa, Ishihara, Kellner, and Vanman et al. (US 2006/0158968
Al) (“Vanman”).
Claims 1, 3—9, and 11—16 stand rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claim 1 of
US 8,774,592 B2 (“the ’592 Patent”) and Unmehopa, Ishihara, and Kellner.
Claim 10 stands rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over claim 1 of the ’592 Patent and
Unmehopa, Ishihara, Kellner, and Vanman.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Brief, and the Answer. We are persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below
for emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection - Claims 1, 3—9, and 11—16
Claim 1 recites “a media presentation status detector operable to
detect whether the presentation of the media item has ended in which: . . .
when the media presentation status detector detects that presentation of the
media item has ended, the media presentation status detector is operable to
3
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
cause the media recorder to enter a stand-by mode.” The Examiner finds
that Unmehopa teaches “when the media presentation status detector is
operable to cause the media recorder to enter a stand-by mode (paras 0025
and 0029, pause (stand-by)).” Final Act. 19 (citing Unmehopa Tflf 25, 29);
see also Ans. 39 (citing Unmehopa ]Hf 25, 29, explaining that Unmehopa
describes the viewer can pause and resume play actively). The Examiner
acknowledges that Unmehopa does not disclose a media presentation status
detector operable to detect whether the presentation of the media item has
ended, and relies on Ishihara for teaching this limitation. See Final Act. 19.
(citing Ishihara, 2:11—14); see Ans. 40 (citing Ishihara, 2:11—14). The
Examiner determined that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a media
presentation status detector operable to detect whether the presentation of
the media item has ended as taught by Ishihara et al in the system of
Unmehopa in order to turn off the power source of the television receiver
when predetermined broadcasting is ended.” Final Act. 19-20.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Unmehopa,
Ishihara, and Kellner is improper. See Br. 19. Appellant asserts Unmehopa
allows for a user to restart a media program, where it was paused when the
user wakes up. See id. (citing Unmehopa ]Hf 23, 25). Appellant points out
that Unmehopa’s display is frozen while the media program is paused. See
id. (citing Unmehopa 123). Unmehopa teaches that in the pause mode, the
DVR (digital video recorder) continually sends the same video frame to the
display, thus freezing the display, while continuing to record the media
program. See Unmehopa ]f 23. Unmehopa further teaches that when the
user wishes to resume the program, the user can cause the DVR to enter the
play mode to send video frames of the media program to the display starting
4
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
from the point at which it stopped. See id. Appellant contends that the need
to be able to freeze the display and also to restart the program means that
Unmehopa would not work if it was modified to turn itself off at the end of
the media program. See Br. 19. Appellant also argues that the Examiner
incorrectly asserts that Unmehopa’s pause mode is a stand-by mode. See Br.
19. Appellant contends that claim 1 recites that the stand-by mode is entered
at the end of the media item. See id. at 19—20. Appellant contends that there
would be no point to Unmehopa pausing at the end of the media program.
See id. at 20.
We agree that the teachings of the cited references, as combined by
the Examiner, do not teach or suggest “when the media presentation status
detector detects that presentation of the media item has ended, the media
presentation status detector is operable to cause the media recorder to enter a
stand-by mode,” recited in claim 1, and recited similarly in independent
claims 13—16. Specifically, the Final Action does not explain sufficiently
how incorporating Ishihara’s teachings of detecting the end of a media
program into Unmehopa’s system that pauses a media program “in order to
turn off the power source of the television receiver when predetermined
broadcasting is ended,” (see Final Act. 19—20; Ans. 39-40) teaches or
suggests the aforementioned limitation. That Ishihara’s teachings “can
therefore be [eajsily combined with the invention of Unmehopa to provide a
useful service” is insufficient to demonstrate that the combination of
Unmehopa, Ishihara, and Kellner teach “when the media presentation status
detector detects that presentation of the media item has ended, the media
5
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
presentation status detector is operable to cause the media recorder to enter a
stand-by mode.” Ans. 40.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 3—9, and 11—16 over Unmehopa, Ishihara, and Kellner. As applied
by the Examiner, the teachings of Vanman do not remedy the deficiencies of
Unmehopa, Ishihara, and Kellner. See Final Act. 23. Therefore, we are
persuaded of error in the § 103 rejection of claim 10 over Unmehopa,
Ishihara, and Kellner, and Vanman.
Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The Examiner relies on the same teachings of Unmehopa and Ishihara
to address “when the media presentation status detector detects that
presentation of the media item has ended, the media presentation status
detector is operable to cause the media recorder to enter a stand-by mode,”
recited in claim 1, and recited similarly in independent claims 13—16.
Compare Final Act. 5—9, with Final Act. 19-20. For the same reasons as
those discussed above addressing the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3—9, and
11—16 over Unmehopa, Ishihara, and Kellner, we are persuaded of error in
the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1,
3—9, and 11—16 over claim 1 of the ’592 Patent, Unmehopa, Ishihara, and
Kellner. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Vanman do not
remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of the ’592 Patent, Unmehopa, Ishihara,
and Kellner. See Final Act. 17—18. Therefore, we are persuaded of error in
the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 10
over claim 1 of the ’592 Patent, Unmehopa, Ishihara, Kellner, and Vanman.
6
Appeal 2015-007492
Application 12/990,100
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1 and 3—16.
REVERSED
7