Ex Parte Kidd et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201411782784 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/782,784 07/25/2007 Deanna R. Kidd PD-207007 8188 20991 7590 05/09/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DEANNA R. KIDD, SHANDLE GREEN, and RAYNOLD M. KAHN ____________ Appeal 2011-005832 Application 11/782,784 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-65. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-005832 Application 11/782,784 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to enabling a service through a user device (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method of accessing a service from a user device comprising: coupling the user device to a network; selecting the service; communicating a welcome video from a service provider through the network to the user device in response to selecting the service; communicating a confirmation signal from the user device to the service provider in response to successfully receiving the welcome video; and enabling access to the service in response to the confirmation signal. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-4, 8-12, 15, 18, 22, 25-29, 31, 34, 37, 40-44, 48-52, 60, 63, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dunn (US 5,861,906; Jan. 19, 1999) (see Ans. 4-10). Claims 5-7, 13, 16, 17, 19-21, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 45-47, 53-59, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn and Atad (US 2005/0055724 A1; Mar. 10, 2005) (see Ans. 10-15). Claims 14, 23, 38, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn and Ferguson (US 2007/0250863 A1; Oct. 25, 2007) (see Ans. 15-16). Appeal 2011-005832 Application 11/782,784 3 Claims 24, 39, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn and Ganesan (US 2009/0019468 A1; Jan. 15, 2009) (see Ans. 16-17). Issue on Appeal The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in finding that Dunn teaches or suggests all the limitations of Appellants’ independent claims? ANALYSIS We reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. We refer herein to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed September 20, 2010 (App. Br.), Examiner’s Answer mailed December 8, 2010 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 8, 2011 (Reply Br.). At the outset, we note that Appellants’ arguments are premised on Appellants’ position that the video-on-demand (VOD) application in Dunn (see Dunn col. 12, ll. 55-57) corresponds to the service recited in Appellants’ claims (App. Br. 12). However, the Examiner explains that the video programs in Dunn (see Dunn col. 13, ll. 20-21) also meet the claimed service (Ans. 19). We agree with the Examiner, as Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or reasoning to rebut the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Turning to Appellants’ specific contentions, with respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that Dunn does not teach communicating a welcome video in response to selecting the service (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2). However, when the claimed service is interpreted to encompass video programs, we agree with the Examiner that Dunn teaches this feature (Ans. 4, 20). Appeal 2011-005832 Application 11/782,784 4 Specifically, Dunn teaches that a user selects a set of video programs, and then preview videos for the requested set of programs are displayed on the TV set (Dunn col. 13, ll. 2-5, 20-26). Appellants’ Specification indicates that a welcome video represents an initial or beginning video (Spec. ¶ [0051]). Because the preview videos in Dunn are initial videos for the selected programs, we agree with the Examiner that Dunn teaches the claimed welcome video. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Appellants also argue that Dunn does not teach communicating a confirmation signal in response to successfully receiving the welcome video (Reply Br. 3). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Dunn teaches that a user watches the previews and then orders one of the programs (Dunn col. 13, ll. 26-32). After the user orders a program, the set-top box sends a program moniker to the headend (Dunn col. 13, ll. 29-32). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of Dunn teach that a confirmation signal for a video program is communicated in response to receiving the welcome video. Appellants also argue that Dunn does not teach enabling access to the service in response to the confirmation signal (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2- 3). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 5, 19-20), Dunn teaches that, after a user’s order is sent to the headend, the ordered video program is sent back to the user’s set-top box and displayed on the TV set (Dunn col. 13, ll. 32-37). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of Dunn teach enabling access to a video program in response to the confirmation signal. With respect to claims 13, 14, 22, 24, and 26, Appellants argue that the additional references cited by the Examiner for those claims do not Appeal 2011-005832 Application 11/782,784 5 compensate for the alleged deficiencies that Appellants identified with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 15-19). Because Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive, Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 13, 14, 22, 24, and 26 are also not persuasive. With respect to the remaining claims, Appellants present no separate arguments and contend their patentability based on the same reasons stated for claim 1 (App. Br. 14- 19). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-65. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-65 is 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)(iv). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation