Ex Parte Goldberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

12296201 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte NEAL GOLDBERG, JOHN RYAN, and DANIEL SIMMS
_____________

Appeal 2012-003223
Application 12/296,2011
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–9, 11–17, and 19–32.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that Bergantino discloses a
care plan manager which dynamically configures, modifies, or reorders the
audio/visual content sessions based on the physiological parameter
measurements input by the biometric device. The Examiner relies on
paragraphs 22, 25, and 26 of Bergantino for teaching this subject matter.

1Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-003223
Application 12/296,201

2

We find that paragraphs 22, 25, and 26 of Bergantino do not disclose this
subject matter. We agree with the Appellants and find that:
Claim 1 further calls for a care plan manager which
dynamically configures, modifies, or reorders the audio/visual
content sessions based on the user's comprehension of the
audio/visual content sessions input by the user interface, and
intervention rules . . . the Examiner directs the appellant[s']
attention to paragraphs [0022], [0025], and [0026] of
Bergantino. However, these paragraphs make no suggestion of
content sessions or the dynamic configuration, modification, or
reordering of content sessions, much less based on the user's
comprehension. Paragraph [0022] of Bergantino, referenced by
the Examiner, instead suggests that the user device have the
capability of taking a picture of food to be consumed and/or
make a voice recording descriptive of the food. There is nothing
about configuring, modifying, or reordering audio/visual
content sessions based on the user's comprehension of them.
Paragraph [0025] of Bergantino discloses recording exercise
completed. The completed exercise is used when
recommending later exercise routines. Paragraph [0025] of
Bergantino makes no suggestion of dynamically configuring,
modifying, or reordering audio/video content sessions based on
the user's comprehension of them.
Paragraph [0026] of Bergantino suggests that the dietary
recommendations can be adjusted in real time in response to the
actual consumption or physical activity. There is no suggestion
of content sessions, much less dynamically configuring,
modifying, or reordering audio/visual content sessions based on
the user's comprehension of the audio/visual content sessions.
(App. Br. 16–17). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 claims 2–9, 11, and 12 dependent thereon.
We will also not sustain the rejection as it relates to claim 13 because
we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 22 of Bergantino, relied on by
the Examiner for teaching this subject matter, does not disclose a television
or a television remote as required by claim 13.
Appeal 2012-003223
Application 12/296,201

3

We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 14, and claims 15–17
dependent thereon because we agree with the Appellants that paragraphs 20
and 29 of Bergantino, relied on by the Examiner for teaching this subject
matter, does not disclose controlling the presentation of content session
based on the patient achieving each of a plurality of designated mile posts.
Paragraphs 20 and 29 of Bergantino disclose a health management module
that includes a database for storing information regarding exercise and diet
programs, but does not disclose controlling content based on the exercise
and diet programs and a patients’ progress with the programs.
We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 19 and
claims 20, 21, and 22 dependent therefrom because we agree with the
Appellants that Murgia does not disclose a processor that reconfigures
content sessions of a goal module based on analysis of trends electronically
received from the patient. We find that Murgia discloses measuring the
patient’s progress and presenting a graph that is representative of this
progress. Murgia does not disclose reconfiguring content sessions based on
analysis of trends electronically received from the patient as required by
claim 19.
We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to independent
claims 23 and 28 and claims 24–27 and 29–32 dependent therefrom because
we agree with the Appellants that the prior art does not disclose a cable or
set top box as required by claims 23 and 28. In the rejection of claim 23, the
Examiner relies on column 6, lines 36–47 of Murgia for teaching a cable or
set top box. This portion of Murgia does not mention a cable or set top box.
In the rejection of claim 28, the Examiner says that the claim is rejected for
the same reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, which does not claim a
Appeal 2012-003223
Application 12/296,201

4

cable or set top box, and as such, the Examiner has not directed our attention
to any teaching in the prior art of a cable or set top box in the rejection of
claim 28.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh