Ex Parte Maissel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2014

12317081 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
12/317,081 12/19/2008 Jonathan Maissel 7251-107697 6799
24628 7590 02/24/2014
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2014 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 JONATHAN MAISSEL, AMIR EILAT, YOSSEF TSURIA,
MOSHE KRANC, YISHAI SERED, GERSHON BAR-ON,
SHABTAI ATLOW, and DAVID ZVIEL
____________

Appeal 2011-011460
Application 12/317,081
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011460
Application 12/317,081

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 10 and 13-17. Claims 1-9 have been withdrawn. Claims
11 and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
10 A subscriber unit for use in a television system
comprising a television network and transmitting apparatus for
transmitting program schedule information, the subscriber unit
comprising:
a receiving unit for receiving said program schedule
information;
a profile storage unit for storing at least one viewer
preference profile of at least one television viewer using said
subscriber unit, said at least one viewer preference profile of at
least one television viewer comprising a preference for
customization of program schedule information;
viewer preference profile loading apparatus for providing
a recorded viewer preference profile of another viewer to the
profile storage unit for storage, said recorded viewer preference
profile of said other viewer comprising a recorded preference
for customization of said program schedule information;
an intelligent agent for customizing said program
schedule information, at least in part, using said recorded
viewer preference profile of said other viewer as an anti-profile
to produce a program guide comprising customized program
schedule information; and
a display apparatus for displaying the program guide;
wherein using a particular viewer preference profile for
customization of said program schedule information and,
alternatively, using said particular viewer preference profile as
an anti-profile for customization of said program schedule
information, have opposite impacts, respectively, on said
customized program schedule information.
Appeal 2011-011460
Application 12/317,081

3
Prior Art
Bedard US 5,793,438 Aug. 11, 1998
Herz US 6,020,883 Feb. 1, 2000
Hendricks US 7,013,478 B1 Mar. 14, 2006

Donald Lancon, Jr. (Lancon), Siskel & Ebert reviews from 1991
http://www.obkb.com/dcljr/serev91.html (May 26, 1999) last visited
February 20, 2014.
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 10, 13, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herz and Lancon.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herz, Lancon, and Hendricks.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herz, Lancon, and Bedard.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend none of the references suggests using a profile as
an anti-profile as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants,
the claimed use of a particular profile as an anti-profile results in an opposite
impact, as compared to using that same particular profile for customization.
Reply Br. 2-4.
Appellants’ contentions are inconsistent with column 15, lines 10-21
of Herz, which teaches that customers may underestimate or overestimate
his/her preference rating for a characteristic. Herz adjusts the customers’
ratings of the profile characteristic in the direction opposite to their
Appeal 2011-011460
Application 12/317,081

4
suggestions, which results in an “opposite impact” within the meaning of
claim 10.
Appellants’ contentions are also inconsistent with the mood criteria
for programming preferences as taught by Hendricks. Col. 30, l. 50 to col.
31, l. 2; col. 34, l1. 16-59; col. 38, ll. 37-43. For example, the customer’s
profile selects programs when the customer is in a happy mood which are
the opposite of the programs selected when the customer is in a sad, or anti-
happy, mood. Col. 30, l. 64 to col. 31, l. 2.
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 13-
17, which fall with claim 10.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 10, 13, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herz and Lancon is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herz, Lancon, and Hendricks is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herz, Lancon, and Bedard 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

ELD