Ex Parte MIN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12467334 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/467,334 05/18/2009
89980 7590 03/30/2016
NSIPLAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wook-hee MIN
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.
012053.0087 7844
EXAMINER
KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
pto@nsiplaw.com
pto.nsip@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOOK-HEE MIN
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467 ,334 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-22. (Appeal Br. 2.) Claim 15 is
cancelled. (Appeal Br. 28.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to an interactive content reproduction
apparatus, where the apparatus selects unit contents of specific levels from
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467,334
among interactive content according to user information and reproduces a
user-adaptive story using the selected unit contents. (Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. An interactive content reproduction apparatus
compnsmg:
a first storage configured to store user information;
a second storage configured to store non-linear
interactive content including a plurality of level-specific unit
contents and story map information;
a controller configured to select unit contents of
respective levels from among the interactive content stored in
the second storage according to the user information stored in
the first storage, and to reproduce a user-adaptive story in
which the selected level-specific unit contents are connected;
and
an interrupt processor configured to interrupt
reproduction of the user-adaptive story reproduced by the
controller, when a user interrupt or a system interrupt occurs,
and to reproduce specific unit contents or a story built by
connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to
the user interrupt or the system interrupt.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-14 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Picco (US 2005/0166224 Al; July 28, 2005)
Shiels et al. (US 6,260, 194 B 1; July 10, 2001) ("Shiels") and Poslinski et al
(US 7,774,811 B2; Aug. 10, 2010) ("Poslinski"). (Final Action 2-9.)
2
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467,334
Issues
Did the Examiner err in construing the claim limitation of "an
interrupt processor configured ... to reproduce specific unit contents or a
story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to
the user interrupt or the system interrupt," as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Picco, Shiels,
and Poslinski, and specifically Poslinski's progress bar, teaches or suggests
"specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which
are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Appellant contends that the combination of Picco, Shiels, and
Poslinski fails to teach or suggest the interrupt processor as recited in claim
1. (Appeal Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 3---6.) Appellant argues that the Examiner
has erred in claim interpretation of the limitation that the interrupt processor
be configured "to reproduce specific unit contents or a story built by
connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user
interrupt or the system interrupt" in making findings relating to the
reproduction of "specific unit contents" but not making findings relating to
specific unit contents being "built by connecting the unit contents, which are
planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt." In
particular, Appellant states the following:
[T]he Advisory Action appears to have overlooked all the
features associated with the reproduction of the specific unit
contents. As correctly indicated in the Final Office Action,
3
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467,334
independent claim 1 recites "specific unit contents or story
built." However, such alternative condition does not justify
excluding the remaining recitations. In particular, independent
claim 1 clearly recites that the interrupt processor is
configured to reproduce specific unit contents "by connecting
the unit contents, which are planned according to the user
interrupt or the system interrupt."
(Appeal Br. 13-14.) We do not agree with Appellant. We conclude that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation encompasses the
interrupt processor reproducing at least one of "specific unit contents" or "a
story built by connecting the unit contents." The claim recitations do not
require the "specific unit contents" to be built by connecting unit contents.
This interpretation is supported by the Appellant's Specification, which
describes how "[a]fter reproducing the specific unit contents or the story
built by connecting them, the interrupt processor 180 resumes or terminates
the interrupted story." (Spec. 14.) Because the claim on its face
distinguishes between a reproduction of specific unit contents and
reproduction of a story composed of specific unit contents, Appellant's
reading would remove any distinction between these two possibilities
presented disjunctively in both the claim and in the Specification. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that, with respect to this claim limitation, the
combination of the prior art need only teach or suggest "specific unit
contents" in order to support a finding of unpatentability.
"specific unit contents or a story built by connecting
the unit contents, which are planned according to
the user interrupt or the system interrupt"
We next address Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
finding the specific unit contents of the disputed limitation are taught or
suggested by the progress bars in Poslinski. (Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 4.)
4
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467,334
Appellant argues that specific unit content cannot be a progress bar showing
the progression of a program. (Appeal Br. 13.) However, the Specification
contains an express definition that, "[t]he term 'unit content' refers to a unit
of content constituting interactive content." (Spec. 7.) This broad definition
is met by the program bar, which displays information in the form of how
much of a program has been viewed and how much remains to be viewed.
(Poslinski 17:7-13.) Additionally, Poslinski's progress bars are interactive,
for example providing the user, as Appellant acknowledges, a way of
"switching the focus to other playback (and/or record) applications by
shifting the focus/highlighting 2150 to other progress bars." (Appeal Br. 14,
citing Poslinski 18:21---67.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Poslinski' s progress bars, as interactive content, teach or suggest "specific
unit contents." (Answer 2-3; Final Action 2--4.) We additionally agree with
the Examiner's finding that the progress bars are "planned according to the
user interrupt" because the bars show where the program has been paused
according to the user interrupt activation of the pause function (the user
interrupt). (Final Action 4.)
Appellant additionally argues that no motivation to combine the
references supported by evidence is provided. The evidence supporting the
combination in an obviousness determination may flow from the prior art
references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or
from the nature of the problem to be solved. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Examiner
provides a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
proposed combination (Final Act. 3--4), and no persuasive argument has
been made by Appellant countering this finding by the Examiner.
5
Appeal2014-005314
Application 12/467,334
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and of claim 17, argued on similar grounds. Additionally, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-14, 16, and 18-22 not
separately argued with specificity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 16-22.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6