Ex Parte Mears

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

12223144 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/223,144 07/23/2008
24498 7590 05/18/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Gilmore Mears
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.
PU050278 5242
EXAMINER
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK GILMORE MEARS 1
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in-Interest is Thomson Licensing S.A. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to receiving and processing closed-caption
data. Spec. ,-r 1.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal
Brie±: reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for processing, by a television receiver, closed caption
information associated with a video program, comprising:
identifying a keyword in the closed caption information;
determining whether an identified keyword has an icon that
graphically represents the identified keyword associated therewith, the
association of the icon and the identified keyword based on user preference
settings of the television receiver; and
generating a closed caption display signal having the icon in place of
the keyword in the closed caption display in response to the determination of
the associated icon.
REJECTION
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bray (US 6,972,802 B2; Dec. 6, 2005), Walter (US 2005/0156873 Al; July 21,
2005) and Aaltonen (US 2003/0149734 Al; Aug. 7, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action,
and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner's Answer. We agree
with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and conclusions of law. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below.
2
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
Appellant argues that the disputed limitations of claim 1 are not taught or
suggested by Bray, Walter, and Aaltonen. App. Br. 10-14. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that Walter's "emoticon does not correspond to a 'keyword,' as recited in
the pending claims." Id. at 12. Appellant contends a keyword is a combination of
letters that form a particular word. Id. Appellant further asserts Walter's
emoticons which correspond to a particular sequence of characters, including
punctuation, letters, and symbols, are representative of an icon rather than a
keyword. Id.; see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing the claims require the icons to
represent identified keywords themselves).
Appellant's arguments are premised incorrectly on a narrow interpretation of
claims 1 and 8. Appellant implicitly construes "the identified keyword has an icon
that graphically represents the identified keyword associated therewith," recited in
claim 1, and "icons each corresponding to an associated at least one keyword,"
recited in independent claim 8, to require the icons to be formed from letters of a
particular keyword, or to represent the keyword itself. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br.
3. We do not agree with Appellant's suggested narrow interpretation of these
claim phrases. Instead, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification, as understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant's Specification does not provide explicit definitions for the terms
"represent," "corresponding," and "associated." One with ordinary skill in the art
would understand that "represent" means "to serve as a sign or symbol of;"2
"corresponding" means "related, accompanying;"3 and "associated" means "to join
2 Represent Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/represent (last visited May 3, 2016).
3 Corresponding Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/corresponding (last visited May 3, 2016).
3
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
or connect together."4 Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "the
identified keyword has an icon that graphically represents the identified keyword
associated therewith," recited in claim 1 includes "the identified keyword has an
icon that graphically serves as a sign or symbol of the identified keyword joined or
connected together with the icon." Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "icons each corresponding to an associated at least one keyword," recited in
claim 8 includes "icons each related to or accompanying at least one keyword
joined or connected together to the icon." The broadest reasonable interpretations
of these claim phrases are consistent with Appellant's Specification, which
discloses correspondence tables listing the correspondence of keywords and icons,
where the correspondence tables may be user-specified. See Spec. i-fi-14, 23, 24, 26,
27, Table-I.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Bray teaches
determining whether an identified keyword has a substitute word associated
therewith, where the association of the replacement word and identified keyword is
based on user preference settings. See Final Act. 2--4 (citing Bray 5 :48---61, 6: 10-
30, 6:40-55, 7:4--17, 8:24--27). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that
Walter teaches parsing of a character stream and checking for keywords mapped to
icons. See Final Act. 2, 4--5 (citing Walteri-fi-f 31, 32, 42, 43, 46, 61, 62, 64).
Lastly, we agree that with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Bray and
Walter teaches "the identified keyword has an icon that graphically represents the
identified keyword associated therewith," as recited in claim 1, and "icons each
corresponding to an associated at least one keyword," as recited in independent
claim 8. See Final Act. 2-5.
4 Associated Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/associated (last visited May 3, 2016).
4
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
Related to the previous argument, Appellant argues that Aaltonen's "icons
are not related to or associated with identified keywords of a closed caption as
recited in the pending claims." App. Br. 13 (citing Aaltonen i-fi-178-80). Appellant
asserts Aaltonen provides a display including icons associated with a television
broadcast. Id. at 12-13 (citing Aaltonen i-fi-f 14, 20-46, 61, Fig. 1).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses the teachings of
Aaltonen alone, rather than addressing the combined teachings of Bray, Walter,
and Aaltonen. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Aaltonen and Walter for teaching
icons associated with identified keywords in combination with Bray's teaching of
replacing identified keywords in a closed caption. See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-3.
Next, Appellant argues that Bray teaches away from the combination with
Walter and Aaltonen. App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 2-3. That is, Appellant contends
that because "Bray teaches replacing an identified keyword with a substitute, or
replacement, word that does not represent the identified word," and "Walter
seeks to replace an identified character sequence with an emoticon that graphically
represents the identified character sequence," the combination of Bray with Walter
would thwart the goal or purpose of Bray. App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant
further argues the combination of Bray with Walter "is in contravention to Bray's
goal of preventing the display of the word, or graphical representations of the
word." App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 2.
We do not agree with Appellant's characterization of Bray's goal or purpose
as replacing an identified keyword with a substitute word that does not represent
the identified word, or preventing the display of graphical representations of a
word. Bray teaches substitute inoffensive words are contained in a library memory
5
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
with reference pointers to undesirable words or phrases that should be replaced by
operation of the closed caption editor. Bray 5:58-61. Bray further teaches a user
can select the replacement words from a sub-library. Bray 8:45--47; accord Bray
3:55---60. Based on Bray's teachings, one with ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that it is the user's selection of a substitute inoffensive word for each
particular undesirable word that is determinative of whether the substitute word
represents (i.e., serves as a sign or symbol of) a particular offensive word.
Although Bray also teaches preventing the display of an offensive word,
Appellants have not persuaded us Bray teaches or suggests preventing the
graphical representation of an offensive word. For these reasons, we do not agree
with Appellant's characterization of Bray's goals or purposes, and therefore, are
not persuaded the combination of Bray, with Walter and Aaltonen would thwart
Bray's goals or render Bray unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Moreover, to the extent Appellant argues that Bray teaches away from the
claimed invention, we also are not persuaded. Appellant does not explain
sufficiently how Bray's teachings suggest that any developments flowing from its
disclosures is unlikely to produce the objective of Appellant's invention, i.e.,
replacing identified keywords with representative icons in a closed caption. See
Syntex (US.A.) v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appellant further argues that the determination of obviousness is improper
because it simply provides the conclusory statement "for the purpose of providing
an enhancement to a text presentation," and disregards the stated goals and
teachings of Bray and Walter. App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 4. Appellant asserts the
Examiner's determination of obviousness is improper on the basis that there are no
factual findings as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would be lead to believe
that combining Bray and Walter would allow an enhancement of a text
presentation. App. Br. 15-16; see Reply Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant
6
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
contends that there are no factual findings that Bray even seeks to provide an
enhancement to a text presentation at all and that, rather, Bray seeks to reduce the
closed-caption text presentation. App. Br. 15-16. Similarly, Appellant argues that
it is improper to combine Bray with Aaltonen, since Bray seeks to reduce or
obscure the display of certain closed caption rather than enable a user to quickly
recognize certain caption text. App. Br. 16; see Reply Br. 4.
First, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument regarding a lack of
factual findings as to how one with ordinary skill in the art would be lead to
combine Bray and Walter. It is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior
art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into
account. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant's arguments also are not persuasive because we do not agree with
Appellant's characterization of Bray as seeking to reduce, rather than enhance, the
closed-caption presentation. See App. Br. 15-16. Appellant's characterization
appears to be based on a literal sense of reducing the amount of text in the closed-
caption presentation. In contrast to Appellant's characterization, Bray teaches a
user is capable of changing the designator codes for offensive words to include or
exclude from a library/sub-library, and the user also is capable of selecting
replacement words from a sub-library. Bray 8:34--47. Bray further provides the
specific example of a language filter for a home TV that allows the level of
strictness to be changed by a parent, but prevents the supervised viewers (i.e.,
children) from changing the filter options. Bray 8:24--33. Based on these
aforementioned teachings of Bray, one with ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Bray teaches or suggests that it is desirable to enhance the viewing
experience of users, such as supervised children who are protected from viewing
offensive language.
7
Appeal2014-001250
Application 12/223, 144
Finally, because we do not agree with Appellant's characterization of Bray's
teachings, we are not persuaded the determination of obviousness is improper
based on the alleged inconsistency between Bray's goal and the goals of the
suggested combination. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bray
in view of Walter, and further in view of Aaltonen for the purposes of improving
the user's overall viewing experience by enhancing ta close-caption text
presentation, and enabling the user to more quickly recognize particular keywords
in text by utilizing user-defined icons. See Final Act. 4--5.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-13 not argued separately.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bray, Walter, and Aaltonen.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8