Ex Parte Le et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

11716374 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

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.
11/716,374 03/09/2007 Craig Le PD-206010 8524
20991 7590 09/29/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
DUFFY, DAVID W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2014 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 CRAIG LE, MATTHEW J. THOMPSON, MARK A. SHURGOT,
DAVID E. FELDSTEIN, EDGAR C. CAMACHO
____________

Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,3741
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–16, and 18–20. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is “The DIRECTTV
Group, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention relates to an outcome prediction system
viewed on a monitor. (Spec. 4, ll. 5, 6.)

Illustrative Claim
1. An outcome prediction system viewed on a
monitor, comprising:
a processor, coupled to the monitor and further
comprising a scoring system for a plurality of contests, the
scoring system and the plurality of contests displayed on the
monitor, the scoring system providing a first moniker indicating
that a selected outcome was correct and a second moniker
indicating that the selected outcome was incorrect, wherein the
scoring system counts a number of first monikers and a number
of second monikers and provides a total number of first
monikers wherein a total number of first monikers for a first
user is compared to a total number of first monikers for a
second user; a navigation bar; displayed on the monitor, to
allow for viewing of a broadcast program on the monitor,
wherein the broadcast program is related to at least one of the
plurality of contests; and
an input device, coupled to the processor, for
inputting at least one selected outcome into the processor,
wherein a plurality of different computing platforms provide
prediction data to the outcome prediction system wherein the
outcome prediction system is updated via a transmission system
that transmits the broadcast program and the outcome
prediction system.

Prior Art
Strachan US 6,347,086 B1 Feb. 12, 2002
Karmarkar US 6,508,709 B1 Jan. 21, 2003
DeWeese US 6,544,121 B2 Apr. 8, 2003
Martin US 7,174,512 B2 Feb. 6, 2007
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

3

Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DeWeese in view of Strachan.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DeWeese in view of Strachan, and further in view of
Karmarkar.
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DeWeese in view of Strachan either
alone, or further in view of Martin.
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DeWeese in view of Strachan either alone, or further in
view of Martin and Karmarkar.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites an “outcome prediction system” wherein
“a total number of first monikers for a first user is compared to a total
number of first monikers for a second user.” (Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.)
In the claimed system, a first moniker indicates that “a selected outcome was
correct.” (Id.) Thus, in the interest of succinctness, we refer to the
comparison in the recited limitation as a “correct-outcome comparison” in
our analysis.
The Examiner finds DeWeese discloses an outcome prediction system
as set forth in claim 1, except that it does not explicitly disclose a correct-
outcome comparison between users. (See Answer 5.) The Examiner finds
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

4
Strachan discloses it is known to compare the number of correct selections
between two users. (Id. at 6.) The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious, in view of Strachan, to modify DeWeese to include a correct-
outcome comparison between two users to “foster competition.” (Id.)
The Appellants argue DeWeese discloses a system which is
incompatible with Strachan, or any other reference, “that teaches comparing
one person’s outcomes with another person’s outcomes.” (Appeal Br. 9.)
The Appellants explain that DeWeese is directed to horse racing betting, and
wagering takes place between an individual and the track. (Id.) The
Appellants contend there is no reason to include a correct-outcome
comparison between users in DeWeese, because this data is not considered
important to the individuals involved. (Id.)
The Examiner finds the incorporation of a correct-outcome
comparison into DeWeese would appeal to the “competitive nature” of the
betters. (Answer 13, 14.) The Examiner notes that “gamblers are generally
competitive by the very nature of placing money on an event.” (Id. at 13.)
As such, “players may wish to be apprised of how successful they are in
comparison to the other players.” (Id.)
The Examiner also finds Strachan “teaches the desirability” of a
correct-outcome comparison “to increase the entertainment for the users.”
(Answer 13.) The Examiner finds providing “more entertainment,” is
another reason to incorporate a correct-outcome comparison into the
DeWeese system. (Id. at 13, 14.)
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious, in view
of Strachan, to modify DeWeese to include a correct-outcome comparison
between users. Regardless of the wagering arrangement used in horse
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

5
racing, the Appellants have not shown, persuasively, why DeWeese’s
betting system would not have been compatible with modifications
appealing to a gambler’s competitive nature and/or increasing entertainment
value, such as those in Strachan. Thus, we are not persuaded by the
Appellants’ argument that DeWeese is incompatible with the claimed
correct-outcome comparison between users.
Independent claim 1 also recites a transmission system which
“transmits the broadcast program and the outcome prediction system.”
(Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.) Claim 1 further requires the outcome
prediction system to be “updated” via this transmission system. (Id.)
The Appellants argue DeWeese teaches that its prediction system “is
not transmitted or updated by the transmission system or, at best, is silent on
this point.” (Appeal Br. 10.) However, the Examiner cites to particular
passages in DeWeese disclosing otherwise. (Answer 14.)2 We agree,
therefore, with the Examiner’s finding that DeWeese discloses the claimed
transmission system. (Id.)
The Appellants also argue Strachan teaches against a prediction
system which is updated by a transmission system. (Appeal Br. 10, 11.) But
as explained by the Examiner, Strachan is only relied upon for its teaching
of the desirability of a correct-outcome comparison. (Answer 14.) The
Appellants do not explain, persuasively, how or why Strachan’s transmission

2See DeWeese, column 13, lines 18–22 (discussing user television
equipment 22 receiving videos from an associated television distribution
facility via path 44f); column 14, lines 1529 (discussing providing
wagering data to users via communication path 44f); and column 15, lines
1554 (discussing users sending wager data using communication path 44f).
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

6
scheme would influence the incorporation of a correct-outcome comparison
into the DeWeese system. We agree, therefore, with the Examiner that the
DeWeese-Strachan combination would include the claimed transmission
system.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.

Independent Claims 7 and 14
The Examiner rejects independent claim 7 and independent claim 14
as obvious over DeWeese in view of Strachan. In the alternative, the
Examiner rejects these independent claims as being obvious over DeWeese
in view of Strachan, and further in view of Martin. (Answer 7, 8.)
The Appellants argue Martin does not remedy “the deficiencies of
DeWeese and Strachan.” (Appeal Br. 13.) However, as discussed above in
connection with independent claim 1, we are not persuaded by the
Appellants’ argument that the DeWeese-Strachan combination is improper
and/or lacks the claimed transmission system. Hence, there are no
deficiencies for Martin to remedy.
The Appellants also assert combinations including Martin are “more
improbable than combining DeWeese and Strachan alone.” (Id.) But the
Appellants do not explain, persuasively, why introducing Martin to the
combination would increase improbability. Moreover, we note the
Examiner rejects independent claims 7 and 14 on two alternative grounds,
only one of which involves Martin.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7 and
independent claim 14.
Appeal 2012-007608
Application 11/716,374

7

Dependent Claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20
The Appellants submit dependent claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and
18–20 stand or fall with their respective independent claims 1, 7, and 14.
(Appeal Br. 13.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2,
4–6, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–16,
and 18–20.
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

llw