Ex Parte Hage

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13840807 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/840,807 03/15/2013
81905 7590 08/30/2018
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chad A. Hage
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20004/94628US01 5948
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NHAT HUY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
docketing@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD A. HAGE
Appeal 2018-003078
Application 13/840,807
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JENNIFER
S. BISK
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-19, 21-22, and 24--28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2018-003078
Application 13/840,807
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1, with emphasis added, recites:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by executing an instruction with a
processor, if buffering is occurring in a media player
application; and
if buffering is not occurring, then:
determining, by executing an instruction with the
processor, if manipulation of a user-selectable media
application control of a user interface of the media player
application is enabled while media is presented by the
media player application, wherein manipulation of the
user-selectable media application control of the user
interface is enabled when a state of the user-selectable
media application control of the user interface can be
changed;
determining, by executing an instruction with the
processor, at least one of the media is not an
advertisement or the media does not include an
advertisement if manipulation of the user-selectable
media application control is enabled; and
determining, by executing an instruction with the
processor, at least one of the media is an advertisement or
the media includes an advertisement if manipulation of
the user-selectable media application control is disabled,
wherein manipulation of the user-selectable media
application control of the user interface is disabled when
the state of the user-selectable media application control
of the user interface cannot be changed.
Rejection
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24--28 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deliyannis (US
2009/0259926, published Oct. 15, 2009) in view of LaRoche et al. (US
2
Appeal2018-003078
Application 13/840,807
6,046,740, issued Apr. 4, 2000) and in further view of Minnick (US
2010/0162301 Al, published Jun. 24, 2010).
ANALYSIS 1
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions.
Based on Appellant's arguments (Appeal Br. 9-27; Reply Br. 2-9),
the principal and dispositive issue as to whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-18, 20, 22, and 23 turns on whether the combination of
Deliyannis, LaRoche, and Minnick teach or suggest
determining, by executing an instruction with the
processor, at least one of the media is an advertisement or the
media includes an advertisement if manipulation of the user-
selectable media application control is disabled, wherein
manipulation of the user-selectable media application control of
the user interface is disabled when the state of the user-selectable
media application control of the user interface cannot be
changed.
(hereinafter "disputed limitation") as recited in independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 1-3.
Appellant did not challenge the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Deliyannis and LaRoche. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 1--4. Appellant
also did not challenge the Examiner's reasoning for combining the three
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-7, 10--13, 16--19 and 21-
22, and 24--28. Rather, Appellants address these claims only by referencing
the arguments for independent claim 1. Thus, the rejection of these claims
turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these
claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2018-003078
Application 13/840,807
references. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 1--4. Thus, we take those
findings as being conceded by the Appellant.
Appellant contends, "Minnick uses a completely different procedure
(i.e. checking for the flag) than the method of claim 1 to determine whether
media is an ad (see i-fi-f[0026], [0029], [0030] of Minnick)." Reply Br. 2.
Initially, we find ,r,r [0023], [0026], [0029], and [0030] of Minnick
describes the disputed limitation. Minnick describes advertisement
management utilizing a flag (i-fi-f [0026], [0029]), as well as determining
whether viewing an advertisement is optional and, if not, forcing the user to
watch the advertisement (i-fi-f [0029], [0030]). Therefore, Minnick at least
suggests determining if user control of viewing an advertisement is disabled
and determining if media includes an advertisement that the user will be
forced to view. Appellant's argument (Reply Br. 2) that Minnick fails to
teach or suggest checking if a user control is disabled and then determining
if the media being displayed is in ad based on that check is unpersuasive
because it does not address the combination of Deliyannis, LaRoche, and
Minnick, and does not explain why Minnick would not have at least
suggested the disputed features.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-19, 21-22,
and 24--28.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-19,
21-22, and 24--28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-003078
Application 13/840,807
AFFIRMED
5