Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2008

09841007 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAE KYUNG LEE
____________

Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: December 31, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-19, 23, and 31-33.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Claims 3 and 20 were cancelled by the Amendment filed April 24, 2006,
claims 21 and 22 were cancelled by the Amendment filed February 7, 2007,
and claims 24-30 were cancelled by the Amendment filed September 30,
2005.
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a TV having a language selection
function and control method capable of displaying character information on
a screen that is included in a broadcast signal (Spec. 1:7-10).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A television (TV) having a language selection function,
comprising:

a control unit configured to receive closed caption character
information in a first language, to send the closed caption character
information to a translation site through a network interface based on
contact information associated with a plurality of translation sites
stored in a storing unit if it is determined that the first language does
not correspond to a selected language, and to receive the translated
closed caption character information corresponding to the selected
language; and

a video processing unit configured to receive the translated closed
caption character information and to display the translated closed
caption character information on a screen substantially in synch with
corresponding audio information.

REFERENCES
Mighdoll US 5,918,013 Jun. 29, 1999
Schein US 6,002,394 Dec. 14, 1999
Gibbon US 6,098,082 Aug. 1, 2000
Gibbon US 6,473,778 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
(filed Feb. 1, 1999)
Berstis US 6,901,367 B1 May 31, 2005
(filed Jan. 28, 1999)
2
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 11-14, 18, 23, and 31-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Schein, Gibbon ‘778
(hereinafter “Gibbon”), and Berstis.
The Examiner rejected claims 5-10, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Schein, Gibbon, Berstis, and Mighdoll.
Appellant contends Schein’s ordering a transcript of a video program
is not commensurate with obtaining closed caption character information
and is not in synch with corresponding audio information (Br. 10-11).
Appellant further contends Gibbon aligns text in the same language it was
received and does not display translated closed captioned text (Br. 11).
Finally, Appellant contends Berstis merely translates email correspondence,
not closed caption character information displayed substantially in synch
with corresponding audio information (Br. 13).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner present a prima facie case of obviousness under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) in finding the linking of Schein for ordering transcripts of
video programs can be combined with the hypermedia parallel text
alignment of Gibbon and the email translation of Berstis to obtain the
present invention?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s invention is an apparatus and method for providing
a language selection function for a TV. Appellant teaches translating closed
caption character information and displaying the translated closed caption
3
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

character information on a screen substantially in sync with corresponding
audio information (Fig. 2; Spec. 8-10).
2. Schein teaches a system and method for linking TV viewers
with advertisers and broadcasters (Abstract). Items and services are
contextually linked to a particular program in a program guide (col. 23, l.
66-col. 24 l. 3). A viewer can order/purchase tape/transcripts of the program
that is currently being shown on the guide (col. 24, ll. 14-17).
3. Gibbon teaches creating hypermedia documents from
conventional transcriptions of TV programs. It does this by using parallel
text alignment techniques to derive the temporal information for the closed
caption signal to convert a transcription into a synchronized text stream.
The text stream creates links between the transcription and the image and
audio media streams (col. 2, ll. 45-53).
4. Berstis teaches front end translation for received
communications (Abstract). Particularly, the front end translation
mechanism intercepts incoming email communications transmitted in a
different language. The incoming communications include, in addition to
email, files transmitted via file transfer protocol (FTP), internet/web pages,
chat or newsgroup communications, and terminal emulation (col. 4, ll. 24-
35). The translation may be completed within an internet environment by
sending the communication to a web site (col. 4, ll. 61-67).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
4
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 11-14, 18, 23, and 31-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Schein, Gibbon, and Berstis.
The Examiner finds Schein teaches the ability of a user to order a transcript
of a video program (Ans. 4). The Examiner then states ordering a transcript
of a video program is “commonly understood in the art” to correspond to
“closed caption character information” (id.). However, Schein is silent as to
the particular creation and delivery method of the transcript but Gibbon
provides means to “produce and deliver high quality video enhanced
transcripts in an automated fashion (id.). The Examiner then contends the
combination of Schein and Gibbon is silent as to the “particular usage of the
Schein et al. ‘network interface’ [72] to receive a translated version of the
closed caption character information associated with the received
hypermedia or web-page transcript” (Ans. 5) and thus applies Berstis.
Berstis is cited as disclosing a device having a language selection function
allowing incoming email messages to be translated into a language selected
by the user and displayed on the user’s monitor along with the original
language text (id.; Figs. 3 & 4; steps 316 and 425 of Berstis). Finally, the
Examiner contends the combination of these references provides an internet
TV having a language selection function capable of ordering an enhanced
5
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

hypermedia or web-page based transcript of a video program including
synchronous closed captioning and audio along with translation of textual
information or closed captioning if needed (Ans. 6), as claimed by
Appellant.
Appellant asserts Schein merely discloses a TV system that can use
electronic programming guides (EPGs) to link sites related to a particular
broadcast (Br. 13). Thus, there is no motivation to combine Schein with
Gibbon and Berstis. Further, even if these references were combined none
teach or suggest displaying a translated closed caption text in synch with
corresponding audio information (Br. 14).
The Examiner has provided no evidence that ordering a transcript as
taught by Schein is “commonly understood in the art” (Ans. 4) to correspond
to closed caption character information to be translated. Schein merely
teaches placing an order for a transcript; not determining if the language of
the closed caption character information corresponds to a selected language.
While Berstis does teach translating email within an internet site (FF 4), the
Examiner’s position is dubious at best that this teaching, when combined
with the other references, somehow teaches or suggests displaying translated
closed caption character information in synch with audio information.
Further, there is nothing in the record before us that reasonably suggests how
one skilled in the art would combine a system for linking TV viewers with
advertisers and broadcasters with a method for generating hypermedia
documents from transcriptions of TV programs using parallel text alignment
and a mechanism for translating a received communication. The Examiner’s
combination of the various teachings from the cited references to arrive at
Appellant’s invention is speculative at best. Accordingly, the Examiner has
6
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

not provided a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 1, 2, 4,
11-14, 18, 23, and 31-33.
The Examiner also rejected claims 5-10, 15-17, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Schein, Gibbon, Berstis, and
Mighdoll. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in Mighdoll to
overcome the deficiencies of Schein, Gibbon, and Berstis. Thus, the
Examiner has not provided a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting
these claims over the cited combination of prior art references.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not provide a prima facie case of obviousness and
thus erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-19, 23, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-19, 23, and 31-33 is
reversed.

7
Appeal 2008-4849
Application 09/841,007

REVERSED

Eld

KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. BOX 221200
CHANTILLY, VA 20153-1200
8