Ex Parte Lashina et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 201612373829 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/373,829 01114/2009 138325 7590 PHILIPS LIGHTING BY 465 Columbus A venue Suite 330 Valhalla, NY 10595 09/16/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tatiana Aleksandrovna Lashina 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2006P01500WOUS 3133 EXAMINER ELAHI, TOWFIQ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): kim.larocca@philips.com jo.cangelosi@philips.com Gigi.Miller@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TATIANA ALEKSANDROVNA LASHINA, KERO VAN GELDER, SANDER BERNARD FRANCIS VAN DE WIJDEVEN, GERRIT HOLLEMANS, and VINCENTIUS PAUL US BUIL Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 17, 19, 21-30, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 7 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis, formatting, and bracketing added): 17. An interaction system comprising: [(A)] a detector configured to detect gazes of at least one viewer looking at a plurality of items; [(B)] a processor configured to[:] [(i)] calculate cumulative gaze durations per item of said plurality of items, [(ii)] rank each of the plurality of items in accordance with the calculated cumulative gaze durations of each of said plurality of items, [(iii)] identify a most looked at item in accordance with said ranking, [(iv)] create at least one group of related products and associate the group with a group weight, [ ( v)] rank each of the groups of related products, [ (vi)] divide each group of related products into sub-groups which are further ranked and weighted to determine sets of ordered products based on the weighted rankings of the subgroups; and [(C)] a display adapted to display a list of said plurality of items and the sets of ordered products according to said ranking and to start at least one of an audio and visual show related to the most looked item according to said ranking. 2 Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bell (US 6,456,262 Bl, issued Sept. 24, 2002), Dryer et al. (US 7,120,880 Bl, issued Oct. 10, 2006), and Hannum et al. (US 2006/0020973 Al, published Jan. 26, 2006). 1 Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 25, and 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Bell, Dryer, Hannum, and other references. 2 Final Act. 16-18. Appellants' Contentions3 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Hannum takes provided member preferences entered by the viewer (strongly dislike, dislike, neutral, prefer and strongly prefer) and appends numerical \veights (l-5) to them. Thus, Hannum requires the user to provide preference input by the user and simply applies a numerical representation to it. (See paragraph [0032]). The Examiner fails to provide an explanation of exactly how such user preference entry is to be utilized within either Bell or Dryer. Nowhere in either Bell or 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 19, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 2 Arguments are not presented for claims 21, 25, and 28. Therefore, our decision as to claim 17 is determinative as to the rejection of claims 21, 25, and 28. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 This contention is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein. 3 Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 Dryer does a user provide such preference input which the Examiner hinges his combination upon. More relevantly, the rejection states: "At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bell device in light of Dryer and Hannum teaching so that it may include rank each of the plurality of items in accordance with the calculated cumulative gaze durations of each of said plurality of items and create at least one group related products and associated the group with a weight, rank each of the groups of related products, divide each group into sub-groups which further ranked and weighted to determine sets of ordered products based on the weighted rankings." (See Page 4 of the Office Action). Problematically, while reciting the presently claimed limitations, the rejection fails to support the location of such elements nor provide a proper basis for such a significant combination. App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted and added. 2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The Examiner, as well at Pg. 4 [of the Examiner's Answer], indicates that Bell and Dryer do not expressly teach "create at least one group of related products and associated the group with a weight; rank each of the groups of related products, divide each group into sub-groups which further ranked and weighted to determine sets of ordered products based on the weighted rankings of the subgroups." (See pg. 4, first full paragraph, 11. 1-5). The Examiner then cites in support of the three-way combination, to Hannum. The Examiner states that Hannum discloses creation of at least one group of related products and division of each group into sub-groups. 4 Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 Hannum, however, on appropriate review, clearly provides an embodiment wherein it is not the products that are grouped but the members who are providing programming choices to their system are each individually weighted so that their preferences may be applied various weighting factors. Reply Br. 3, emphasis added. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 17 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, in the Final Action at pages 3--4, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 33-34 of Hannum as disclosing the steps of: [ (a)] create at least one group of related products and associated the group with a weight, [ (b)] rank each of the groups of related products, [(c)] divide each group into sub-groups which [are] further ranked and weighted to determine sets of ordered products based on the weighted rankings of the sub-groups Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2 challenge these findings. We conclude, consistent with Appellants' argument, there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings. For example, the Examiner has not sufficiently identified how Hannum teaches or suggests a "group of related products" associated with a "group weight," let alone "sub-groups which are further ranked and weighted." Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the 5 Appeal2015-005891 Application 12/373,829 Examiner's final conclusion that claim 17 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 19, 21-30, and 32 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 17, 19, 21-30, and 32 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation