Ex Parte Kouhi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2014

11999586 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte ROSS KOUHI
and
ROBERT ROBOTHAM
____________

Appeal 2012-004400
Application 11/999,586
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1–51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-004400
Application 11/999,586

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to facilitating interactive
advertising in digital television (DTV) programming content through
highlighting advertised offerings (Spec. 1:8–11).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

highlighting a selectable advertisement offering presented within
Digital (DTV) program content, wherein said highlighting is performed
directly within said DTV program content during said DTV program content
presentation;

creating an entry corresponding to said offering in an offering
response data structure during said DTV program content presentation in
response to notification of an interest in said offering being transmitted
during said DTV program content presentation, wherein said notification
being transmitted is facilitated through an DTV infrastructure through which
said DTV program content presentation is facilitated and wherein the entry
includes information allowing a segment of said DTV program content in
which the selectable advertisement offering is presented to be retrieved at a
point in time after the entry is created; and

providing access to information corresponding to said offering in
response to said offering entry in the offering response data structure being
selected, wherein providing said access includes accessing said information
corresponding to said offering at a point in time after said notification
reference point entry is created using said information allowing the segment
of said DTV program content to be retrieved.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Kitsukawa (US 6,282,713 B1), Hooks (US 6,169,542
B1), and Jain (US 6,144,375).
Appeal 2012-004400
Application 11/999,586

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kitsukawa teaches or suggests all Appellants’
claim limitations except for: 1) providing access to information
corresponding to an offering in response to an offering entry in an offering
response data structure that is selected; and 2) explicitly teaching a retrieved
segment of program content includes information allowing a segment of the
program content to be retrieved (Ans. 6, 9, 20). The Examiner finds Jain
discloses these features (Ans. 8–9, 20).
Appellants contend the portions of Jain cited by the Examiner do not
cure the deficiencies of Kitsukawa (App. Br. 13). Additionally, Appellants
recite the features of Jain and state the Examiner did not show how the
combination teaches Appellants’ claimed invention. Particularly, Appellants
contend the portions of Jain relied upon do not disclose a “selectable
advertising offering” (App. Br. 14). We note the Examiner relies on
Kitsukawa for teaching this feature (Ans. 6, 18–19). We also note
Appellants appear to be arguing the references separately and not as a
combination (id.) (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) “the test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness.1 Appellants do not separately argue claims 2-51
with particularity (App. Br. 14–15) and thus, we are similarly unpersuaded

1 We do not address the Examiner’s non-functional descriptive material
argument (Ans. 18) as the Examiner found the references teach or suggest all
of Appellants’ claimed invention (Ans. 18–19).
Appeal 2012-004400
Application 11/999,586

4
of Examiner error in rejecting these claims. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–51.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–51 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

cdc