Ex Parte Jasinschi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2007

10165904 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RADU S. JASINSCHI,
NEVENKA DIMITROVA, and JOHN ZIMMERMAN
____________________

Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,9041
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: October 26, 2007
____________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Application filed June 10, 2002. The real party in interest is U.S. Philips
Corporation.
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

2
Appellants’ invention relates to a content augmentation system to
generate, update and transform television personal preference profiles. Both
push and pull technologies are used to ascertain preferences based on
viewing patterns. The invention further analyzes user queries to determine
the depth of user requests for information; infers values from the user
requests; relates augmented content information to the internet and
specialized databases; and draws inferences about the user’s interests and
preferences (Specification 3).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for performing content augmentation of personal
profiles comprising:

(a) building a user history of a plurality of augmented
content information of relevant TV programs;

(b) analyzing user queries and determining a degree to
which the user queried for additional content information;

(c) inferring values about the user from the user queries
for additional content information in step (b) so as to augment
the additional content information;

(d) updating the augmented content information to at
least one of the user history, Internet and specialized databases;
and

(e) linking individual ones of the plurality of augmented
content information to each other;

(f) determining inferences about the user’s interests
and preferences based on the linkage of the plurality of
augmented content information.
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eichstaedt US 6,654,735 B1 Nov. 25, 2003
Schaffer WO 01/13264 A2 Feb. 22, 2001
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Schaffer.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in his rejection because
Schaffer does not teach analyzing user queries and determining a degree to
which the user queried for more information; inferring values about the user
from the user queries; or determining inferences about the user’s interests
and preferences (Br. 8, 9). The Examiner contends that Schaffer,
particularly the section on creating a customized piece of enhanced data
content (Answer 5-6), discloses the limitations of the claims.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether the Examiner
erred in holding that Schaffer analyzes user queries, infers values about a
user, and determines inferences about a user’s interests and preferences in
the manner claimed by Appellants.

Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellants invented a system to provide content augmentation
to generate, update and transform television personal profiles. The content
augmentation corresponds to the particular TV program data that is relevant
content information (Specification 2).
2. A user history can be built by correlating the program being
watched with an electronic program guide (EPG) that displays listings for
the available channels. Often the EPG displays the channel, the starting and
end times, the title, the names of starring actors and may even include a
short synopsis of the story line (Specification 8).
3. Viewing information can be periodically uploaded. The
building of the user history in this manner is implicit in that the user does not
expressly provide feedback or indicate likes/dislikes. The EPG data
uploaded in this manner can be analyzed to update the user history to
identify more subtle preferences. A profile based on implicit viewing can
often accurately indicate a viewer preference in lieu of or in addition to
explicit feedback (Specification 9-10).
Schaffer
4. Schaffer teaches a system for providing additional information
relating to a media selection. Enhanced content data is embodied in a
plurality of data structures, each having a plurality of nodes. A processor
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

5
chooses between the nodes responsive to a list of user features in a user
profile (pp. 1-2, 5-6).
5. Preferably, local memory contains an embodiment of a user
profile. The profile may be assembled in accordance with the teachings of
WO 99/04561, or according to any known technique for assembling user
profiles. Alternatively, the user profile might be established in response to a
questionnaire administered to the user (pp. 2-3).
6. In order to choose between such content nodes, the node rules
of a current node are analyzed and the best node is chosen. The best node is
added to the enhanced content buffer (p. 6).
7. In one embodiment, the subtopics of an advertisement might be
chosen in accordance with a user profile (p. 6).
Eichstaedt
8. Eichstaedt teaches methods for automatic, real-time generation
of a user interest profile from current user input communication data streams
(e.g. e-mail, telephone), and automatically providing useful information to
the user based on such data streams (col. 1).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

6
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in holding claim 1 to be
anticipated by Schaffer, because Schaffer fails to teach or suggest analyzing
user queries and determining a degree to which the user has queried for
additional content information; inferring values about the user from the user
queries for additional content and to augment the additional content
information; updating the augmented content information to at least one of
the user history, internet and specialized databases; or determining
inferences about the user’s interests and preferences based on the linkage of
the plurality of augmented content information, as required by the claim (Br.
8, 9).
We agree with Appellants. The critical deficiency of Schaffer with
respect to the claimed invention is that Schaffer creates enhanced content
from a (previously built) user profile, rather than building a user history
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

7
from a plurality of augmented content information (FF 2, 3, 5; Reply Br. 2-
3).
The Examiner cites pages 5-6 of Schaffer as allegedly teaching
“analyzing user queries and determining a degree to which the user queried
for additional content information.” This section describes in general terms
how Schaffer creates a “customized piece of enhanced data content,” which
is additional information associated with a media selection accessed by a
user, by evaluating “nodes” of information and choosing the best one (FF 6).
Schaffer, however, contains no teaching that user queries are analyzed as a
basis for choosing the best node. The Examiner argues that because
“‘choosing’ inherently requires analysis of the data,” Schaffer’s disclosure
of choosing between potential nodes of enhanced content corresponds to
“analyzing user queries” (Answer 11). Schaffer’s analysis here, however,
amounts to analysis of the (preset) user history of accessed media selections
in order to select enhanced content to present to a user, not an analysis of
user queries for said enhanced content. Schaffer thus fails to teach this claim
limitation.
The Examiner cites page 6, lines 1-5 of Schaffer as allegedly meeting
the limitation of “inferring values about the user from the user queries for
additional content.” This is the same section relied upon the Examiner
supra, concerned with evaluating nodes and choosing the “best.” Schaffer
contains no teaching of inferring values about a user, and the Examiner has
no rebuttal to Appellants’ challenge of this citation in the Brief.
The Examiner cites page 6, lines 1-9 of Schaffer in an attempt to meet
the limitation of “determining inferences about the user’s interests and
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

8
preferences based on the linkage of the plurality of augmented content
information.” The cited section, as noted supra, discusses picking the best
“node” of enhanced content to present to a user, and gives as an example
that “the subtopics of an advertisement might be chosen in accordance with
a user profile” (FF 6, 7). This section illustrates the difference between the
claimed invention and the Schaffer reference. Schaffer is concerned with
selecting the optimal enhanced content to present, taking the user profile as
given, whereas the disclosed and claimed invention is directed to developing
and sharpening the user profile in the first instance. Schaffer does not teach
determining inferences about the user’s interests and preferences, because
Schaffer assumes the existence of the user profile, noting that such a profile
“may be assembled … according to any other known technique for
assembling user profiles” (FF 2, 3, 5).
Because we find that Schaffer does not teach these limitations of
claim 1, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-11 dependent therefrom.
Independent claim 12 contains many limitations parallel to those of
claim 1. As noted supra, Schaffer fails to teach (at least) the means for
analyzing a degree to which a user queried for additional content
information, as well as the means for linking the viewer profile with one of
the Internet and specialized databases. Independent claim 19, drawn to a
content augmentation device, contains limitations that parallel those in claim
12, which Schaffer does not teach or suggest. We therefore reverse the
rejection of claims 12 and 19, as well as claims 13-18 and 20-24 dependent
therefrom.
Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904

9
With respect to the rejection of claims 4, 5, 16 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, Schaffer fails to teach several limitations of the claims, as explained
supra. Eichstaedt fails to make up the deficiencies of Schaffer. Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 16 and 23 as being obvious
over Schaffer in view of Eichstaedt.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-24. On the record before us, claims 1-24 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is reversed.
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).
REVERSED

KIS

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510