Ex Parte HageDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201813840807 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation