Ex Parte Klarfeld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2014

11370156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/370,156 03/06/2006 Kenneth A. Klarfeld MET2.PAU.23.A 8716
23386 7590 03/26/2014
Myers Andras Sherman LLP
19900 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92612
EXAMINER
BROWN, RUEBEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2014 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 KENNETH A. KLARFELD, RICHARD HUMPLEMAN,
ISAAC (ARIEL) BENTOLILA, and YIMING ZHOU
____________

Appeal 2011-011166
Application 11/370,156
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011166
Application 11/370,156

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-9, 32, and 35-37, all the claims pending in the
application. Claims 10-15, 33, and 34 are withdrawn, and claims 16-31 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to receiving a plurality of
video segments constituting a TV program and information describing each
segment, and controlling the display of the segments to a viewer in
accordance with preferences of the viewer and with the description of each
segment. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for displaying a TV program to a viewer,
comprising:
allowing the viewer to select one of a plurality of
available TV programs for viewing;
receiving a plurality of video segments constituting the
selected TV program;
receiving information describing each received video
segment;
assembling the plurality of received video segments in
accordance with the segment information and with previously
predicted viewing preferences of the viewer; and
displaying the received video segments in accordance
with the segment information and with the previously predicted
viewing preferences of the viewer, wherein all the received video
segments are displayed and wherein the viewer is notified on the
Appeal 2011-011166
Application 11/370,156

3
display when one of the received video segments to be displayed
exhibits a content rating that exceeds a permissible threshold
associated with said previously predicted viewing preferences.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-9, 32, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ismail (US Patent Pub. 2006/0212900 A1, Sept. 21,
2006) and Chard (US 4,605,964, Aug. 12, 1986).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-9, 32, and 35-37
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We
concur with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined teachings of Ismail and Chard, particularly Chard, discloses “the
viewer is notified on the display when one of the received video segments to
be displayed exhibits a content rating that exceeds a permissible threshold,”
as set forth in claim 1.
Specifically, Appellants contend:
As such, the claimed invention provides a different type of message to
the viewer at a different point in time than Chard. . . . the claimed
invention provides a message indicating that potentially objectionable
content is scheduled “to be displayed” (i.e., in the future). . . . Chard
. . . provides a message while the excluded content is scheduled for
output/display.
(App. Br. 5). The Examiner relies upon Chard to teach and/or suggest the
above-noted limitation (see Ans. 6) and cites col. 7, lines 21-23 which states:
“[i]f desired, while the sound and/or vision is being blanked, a message can
be displayed on the tub 16 indicating the reason for the blanking.”
Appeal 2011-011166
Application 11/370,156

4
In other words, Chard displays a message while the suspect video portion is
being blanked-out. Claim 1 requires displaying a message when one of the
received video segments to be displayed exhibits a content rating that
exceeds a permissible threshold (see claim 1). Appellants contend, and we
agree, that such a recitation pertains to a video segment not yet displayed.
On this record, we find no response from the Examiner regarding
Appellants’ specific argument pertaining to Chard’s displaying of the
message while blanking out the video as opposed to the claimed displaying
of the message before displaying the video (i.e., video segments to be
displayed). In other words, we do not have the benefit of the Examiner’s
evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer, as the Examiner has
ignored the same. We are therefore constrained by the record before us to
find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-9, 32, and 35-37 for similar reasons.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Chard teaches the
above-noted limitation, as recited in the only pending independent claim,
claim 1. The Examiner has not found any of the other references of record
teach this feature. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1-9, 32, and 35-37.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 32, and 35-37 is
reversed.

REVERSED
tj