Ex Parte Katayama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2011

10501082 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YASUSHI KATAYAMA
____________________

Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided:
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

2
Appellant’s appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, 21, 23, 24, and 27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). An Oral Hearing was held on September 15, 2011.
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention is related to an information
processing apparatus and method, and a computer program that allows
efficient data processing execution, especially, data recording/reproducing
processing, that uses a plurality of networked information processing
apparatuses. The system and method are directed toward implementing an
execution configuration for efficiently recording and reproducing data using
distributed nodes. (Spec.1, ll. 8-16; Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 9 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
9. An information processing apparatus comprising:

a data reception unit;

a rule decision processing unit configured to determine whether
data processing based on a data processing request received via the data
reception unit is to be executed; and

a data processing unit configured to execute data processing
based on the determination of the rule decision processing unit, wherein

Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

3
the rule decision processing unit is configured to execute
determination processing for determining whether or not the processing
according to the processing request is to be executed based on a rule
deciding condition descriptor, and the rule deciding condition descriptor
is determined based on a probability value.

Prior Art
Abe US 2002/0069408 A1 Jun. 6, 2002
Jeyachandran US 6,567,176 B1 May 20, 2003
Freed US 7,073,055 B1 Jul. 4, 2006
Rejections
Claims 9, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abe and Jeyachandran.
Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abe, Freed, and Jeyachandran.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9, 21, and 27
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Abe and
Jeyachandran because Abe does not teach or suggest a rule decision
processing unit as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 6-9). Specifically, Appellant
contends the decision made by the rule decision unit 22 of Abe is not based
on the request 350c, the request at step S470, or the request at step S413,
asserted to teach the data processing request by the Examiner (id.). Further,
according to Appellant, a decision as to “whether or not the processing
according to the processing request is to be executed” is not made by the
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

4
rule decision unit 22 and, therefore, cannot be made “based on a probability
value ” (App. Br. 8).
Appellant additionally asserts that Jeyachandran teaches a check is
performed to determine if a registered job can be executed based on whether
performance of the job is possible, not based on a probability value (App.
Br.8). Moreover, Appellant argues the Examiner has not set forth how a CM
probability database 103 of Abe would modify Jeyachandran nor how the
job execution determination unit 207 of Jeyachandran could modify Abe to
teach the invention as recited in claim 9 (id.).
The Examiner finds Abe teaches a rule decision condition unit 22 for
processing information related to Commercial Message “CM” (Ans. 16).
The Examiner then finds that the rule decision condition unit 22
transmits/receives detailed information through transmission means,
processing means, a detecting section, and an acquisition section for
acquiring information corresponding to the detected information (Ans. 16).
The Examiner further finds the CM candidate table 21 feeds the rule
decision unit and obtains by a score decision in the supplementary condition
decision unit, to output the CM based on the “information request” and it is a
probability value (id).
Further, the Examiner finds Jeyachandran teaches the method includes
a job execution determination unit 207 that determines whether a job should
be executed, or when the job is to be executed (Ans. 17). The Examiner
further finds Abe teaches the rule decision unit decides whether or not to
process such request based on a set of rules (i.e. based on the content of the
request, and probability value) and makes decisions or presents output
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

5
decisions based on a probability value that was calculated with regard to
popularity of a commercial message (Ans. 18-19). Thus, according to the
Examiner the combination of Abe and Jeyachandran would have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in claim 9.
Issue 1: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Abe and Jeyachandran would have taught or suggested “the
rule decision processing unit is configured to execute determination
processing for determining whether or not the processing according to the
processing request is to be executed based on a rule deciding condition
descriptor” and “the rule deciding condition descriptor is determined based
on a probability value” as recited in claim 9 and commensurately recited in
claims 21 and 27?

ANALYSIS
We reverse. Abe teaches when a consumer finds an interesting CM,
the consumer 303 may request information about the CM from the access
site information furnishing device 303 (pg. 4, [0069] and Fig. 2). The access
site information retrieval unit 355 acquires information on the CM and refers
to information from the CM database unit to determine if the CM aired at the
time and channel supplied in the request (pg. 5, [0083] and Fig. 6). A
coordinating unit 353 executes coincidence retrieval between the
information from the CM database unit and the information of the CM
detection unit, and in case of coincidence, coordinates the CM, airing time
and channel and the access site information for re-storage in the CM
database unit 354 (pg. 5, [0082] and Fig. 6).
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

6
In Abe, the system is able to separate and automatically detect a CM
from the aired CMs, compare and identify the detected CM with a CM
registered at the outset and to coordinate the airing time and channel with the
access site information (pg. 5, [0090]). The CM detecting portion of the CM
detection/storage/browsing/retrieval unit 331 (Fig. 4) detects the CM from
the aired signal to identify the time or duration of the CM and the CM
detection unit 352 detects, separates, and extracts the commercial portion
from aired signal to output information pertinent to the image, speech, airing
time and airing channel (Fig. 6) (hereinafter, “CM detection section”) (pg. 5,
[0081] and [0092] –[0093]). The CM detection sections detect the CM
portion from e.g., the television broadcast signals (pg. 5, [0093]). A CM
candidate (a portion of the signal thought to be a CM) is deterministically
extracted from the signal and selected based on statistical evaluation of the
possibility that the signal portion is a CM (pg. 6, [0116]).
However, the Examiner has not shown that Abe teaches or suggests
this extraction of CM candidates, which is based on a probability value, is
processed in accordance with the user’s request. Instead, Abe teaches or
suggests that the user’s request for CM information is retrieved by referring
to stored CM information that coordinates with the CM candidate
information acquired (pg. 5, [0082] and Fig. 6). Therefore, although Abe
teaches or suggests processing (retrieving CM information) based on
specific information (airing time and channel), the Examiner has not shown,
nor do we readily find, that Abe teaches or suggests determining whether
data processing based on a data processing request (user’s request), is to be
executed based on a rule deciding condition descriptor determined based on
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

7
a probability value (CM candidate determination). The Examiner has not
shown that Abe teaches or suggests that any request is determined to be
processed based on a rule deciding condition descriptor determined based on
a probability value.
Nor do we find that the Examiner has shown Jeyachandran cures this
deficiency. Indeed, Jeyachandran teaches a user inputs a job which is then
registered in a job table and a job execution determination unit determines
whether a job should be executed, or when the job is to executed (col. 14, l.
63 to col. 15, l. 9).
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Abe or Jeyachandran, taken
alone or in combination, teaches or suggests determining whether data
processing based on a data processing request is to be executed based on a
rule deciding condition descriptor determined based on a probability value.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Abe and Jeyachandran would have taught or suggested the
invention as recited in independent claim 9 and commensurately recited
independent claims 21 and 27, not separately argued. Therefore, Appellant
has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 21, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Abe and Jeyachandran.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 11, 12, 23, and 24
The Examiner has not shown that Freed cures the deficiencies of Abe
and Jeyachandran, as set forth above with respect to claim 9. Accordingly,
the Examiner has not shown Abe, Freed, and Jeyachandran, taken alone or in
Appeal 2010-003901
Application 10/501,082

8
proper combination, would have taught or suggested the invention as recited
in claims 11, 12, 23, and 24. Therefore, Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Abe, Freed, and Jeyachandran.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Abe and Jeyachandran is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Abe, Freed, and Jeyachandran is reversed.

REVERSED

tj