Ex Parte Kelly et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2011

10481151 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/481,151 12/17/2003 Declan Patrick Kelly NL 010448 2871
7590 01/18/2011
U S Philips Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
P O Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
EXAMINER
ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DECLAN PATRICK KELLY and JOZEF PIETER VAN GASSEL
____________________

Appeal 2009-011618
Application 10/481,151
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011618
Application 10/481,151

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of displaying announcements comprising
the acts of:
providing a first announcement embedded in a stream of audiovisual
information;
displaying a second announcement if the first announcement is
prevented from being displayed on a display screen, said second
announcement being equivalent to the first announcement, wherein the
second announcement is displayed during display of a first part of the stream
of audiovisual information in which the first announcement is not embedded,
said first part being chronologically displayed after a second part of the
stream of audiovisual information in which the first announcement is
embedded.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, and 11-14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Slezak (US
6,006,257) and Plotnick (US 2002/0144262 A1).2

2 Claims 11-14 are rejected by the Examiner as discussed in the rejection
from which appeal is taken. However, these claims were mistakenly not
listed in the statement of the rejection.
Appeal 2009-011618
Application 10/481,151

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, and 10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Slezak,
Plotnick, and Nieminen (US 6,961,953 B2).

Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend with regard to independent claims 1, 8, and
11 (Br. 9-11) that Slezak discloses preventing a “must view” video from
being skipped, and instead of displaying a second announcement after a
stream portion in which the first announcement is embedded, Appellants
assert that Slezak forces display of the video stream that is desired to be
skipped. Appellants assert (Br. 10) that Slezak fails to teach or suggest
displaying a second announcement if a first announcement is skipped.
2. Appellants also contend with regard to independent claims 1, 8,
and 11 (Br. 11) that neither Slezak, Plotnick, nor the combination thereof
teach or suggest displaying a second announcement chronologically after
part of the stream where the skipped first announcement is embedded.
3. Appellants contend with regard to claims 7, 9, and 10 (Br. 11)
that these claims should be allowed at least due to their ultimate dependence
from one of independent claims 1 and 8.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 11, and
claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 that depend respectively therefrom, as being
obvious because the Slezak and Plotnick references fail to teach or suggest
the limitations at issue?

Appeal 2009-011618
Application 10/481,151

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
As for Appellants’ arguments that Slezak fails to teach or suggest
displaying a second announcement if the first announcement is skipped, we
note that the Examiner relies upon Plotnick, and not Slezak, as teaching this
feature (see Ans. 5 and 7-9). Plotnick (¶¶ [0059], [0093], and [0094])
describes forcing the display of a second announcement (e.g., alternative
brief version of a first and original announcement) when a user/viewer fast-
forwards or tries to skip an announcement. We find Appellants’ second line
of argument, supra, not commensurate in scope with the claim language in
claims 1 and 8, which do not recite displaying a second announcement
chronologically after part of the stream where the skipped first
announcement is embedded, as argued. Instead, claims 1 and 8 recite “said
first part being chronologically displayed after a second part of the stream of
audiovisual information in which the first announcement is embedded” and
claim 11 recites “said first part being chronologically displayed after the
announcement part.”

Appeal 2009-011618
Application 10/481,151

5
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8, and 11-14
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Slezak and
Plotnick.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 7, 9, and 10 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Slezak, Plotnick, and
Nieminen.
(3) Claims 1-14 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 are affirmed.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

kis

US PHILIPS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
PO BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510