Ex Parte MountainDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201611818462 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111818,462 06/14/2007 24118 7590 07/29/2016 HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN, P.C. 228 W 17TH PLACE TULSA, OK 74119 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dale Mountain 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. BAI525- l 66/07224 2002 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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): thamm@hjklaw.com khinkle@hjklaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DALE MOUNTAIN Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the assignee is Pace Plc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention "relates to broadcast data receivers (BDRs) and more specifically to a plurality of BDRs which are connected together typically ... via a local network." Spec. 1, 11. 10-12. According to Appellant, the invention "aims to provide an improved arrangement in which the user of one BDR can take account of what is being watched on another BDR" (id. at 3, 11. 1-2), such as "a BDR in a child's room [that] could allow the child access to potentially unsuitable broadcast material" (id. at 2, 11. 10-12). As one solution, "a log of the data relating to the program output ... can be stored" and "[t]he user ... can easily assess the usage data ... if, for example, a parent is out and wishes to check on usage of the BDRs in their absence." Id. at 6, 11. 5-9. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis and paragraphing, is representative of all claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) (representative claims). 1. A system for monitoring the operation of one or more broadcast data receivers located within the same premises, the system comprising: a first broadcast data receiver connected to one or more further broadcast data receivers via a communication network with each of the broadcast data receivers located within the same premises, each of the broadcast data receivers arranged to process transmitted video, audio and/or auxiliary data received from at least one broadcaster so as to provide a corresponding program output, via a display screen and speakers connected thereto[,] wherein the first broadcast data receiver is arranged to receive at least a portion of data which is, or is representative of data, processed by the one or more further broadcast data receivers and uses the portion of data to provide an indication to a user of the 2 Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 first broadcast data receiver of the program being output from the one or more further broadcast data receivers[,] wherein there is provided a memory in the first broadcast data receiver in which a log of the data relating to the program output of the said first broadcast data receiver and the data received relating to the program output of the other broadcast data receivers is stored to build up the log of the programs which have been watched over time and information from said log is available to be subsequently displayed to a user[,] wherein the said receivers are connected within the premises via a local connection network and the log is generated from data received from the broadcast data receivers connected to said local connection network. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1-18 and 20-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis '281(US2007/0157281 Al; July 5, 2007), Ngo (US 7,134,132 Bl; Nov. 7, 2006), Ellis '965 (US 2006/0136965 Al; June 22, 2006), and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellant argues that the cited references "do not disclose broadcast data receivers within the same premises wherein a log is generated from the 3 Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 broadcast receivers of data located within the same single premises." App. Br. 10. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument because it attacks the references individually and fails to address the Examiner's findings as a whole. The Examiner finds Ellis '281 teaches broadcast data receivers located within the same premises, consisting of primary and secondary user equipment located connected via a home network. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 15- 16. The Examiner further relies on Ngo and Ellis '965 as teaching data receivers that store a user's viewing history and make this information available for display to the user. Final Act. 3--4. We agree with the Examiner that combing the teaching of recording a user's viewing history, as described in Ngo and Ellis '965, with the teaching of data receivers located within the same premises, as described in Ellis '281, teaches or suggests "receivers ... connected within the premises via a local connection network and the log is generated from data received from the broadcast data receivers connected to said local connection network," as required by claim 1. Appellant further argues "none of the prior art documents disclose or teach the display of the information from the log to the user." App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues that the cited references utilize a user's viewing history to generate further program recommendations and/or focused advertising and that such recommendations or advertising would not be used "such that a parent may observe or monitor usage of the receivers in the network" and "would not make the [parent] aware that [unsuitable] content was being viewed." App. Br. 10. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant's argument is incommensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require that the 4 Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 information from the log of watched programs be used to monitor usage for unsuitable content. Nor does claim 1 require that the information from the log be displayed, but merely recites that the information from the log is available to be subsequently displayed. Further, Appellant's argument that the cited references do not teach or suggest the display of information from the log to the user is also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Ngo and Ellis '965 teach recording a user's viewing history and using this information to provide targeted advertising. Ans. 15 (citing Ngo Fig. 10; Ellis '965 iJ 107). Ellis '965 also teaches that the viewing histories are stored by the program guide server and used to identify the programs users have watched. Ellis '965 iii! 7, 109. Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim, we agree that Ngo' s targeted advertising, and the identification of watched programs by Ellis '965's program guide server, teaches or suggests that information from a log of watched programs is, in fact, available to be subsequently displayed to the user. Appellant also argues the Examiner's obviousness rationale is conclusory. App. Br. 12. The argument is unpersuasive. As reflected by our above discussion of the Examiner's findings, the Examiner supports the combination's storing of viewer histories (in view of Ngo and Ellis '965) for locally networked set-top boxes (in view of Ellis '281 and AAPA) and providing of information therefrom. Ans. 15-16; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"). Moreover, Appellant does not present persuasive argument or evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See 5 Appeal2015-002787 Application 11/818,462 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 19). Therefore, Appellant has not shown the above combination is unobvious. Nor has Appellant shown claim l's invention distinguishes over the above combination. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-28. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 and 20-28 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation