Ex Parte Nakatsuyama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10725149 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

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.
10/725,149 12/01/2003 Takashi Nakatsuyama 50N3175.02 1767
27774 7590 04/18/2013
MAYER & WILLIAMS PC
251 NORTH AVENUE WEST
Suite 201
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
ZHONG, JUN FEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2013 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 TAKASHI NAKATSUYAMA
____________________

Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to broadcast systems in which a user
designates particular information to be received. Spec. ¶ [0002].
Illustrative Claims
Independent claims 1 and 7 further illustrate the invention. Claims 1
and 7 read as follows:
1. A method for receiving in a broadcast system, at a
receiver having a unique identification number, only designated
information, the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring a broadcast index signal containing tuning
data;
detecting the unique identification number associated
with the receiver in the broadcast index signal;
downloading the tuning data subsequent to detecting the
unique identification number in the detecting step;
storing the downloaded tuning data in memory; and
tuning and receiving a program signal containing
program data associated with a program using the tuning data
stored in said storing step.

7. A method for requesting and receiving designated
information in a broadcast system, at a transceiver having a
unique identification number the method comprising the steps
of:
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

3
transmitting to a wireless communication system a
request signal, the request signal including the unique
identification number and a request for a program;
receiving from the wireless communication system a
broadcast index signal containing the unique identification
number associated with the receiver and tuning data;
storing the tuning data in memory; and
receiving a program signal containing program data,
associated with a program, using the stored tuning data.

Rejections on Appeal1
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Hendricks ‘350 (US 5,659,350, Aug. 19, 1997) (Ans. 4-5);
2. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hendricks ‘350 and Wannenmacher (US 6,178,447 B1, Jan.
23, 2001) (Ans. 6);
3. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hendricks ‘350 and Barrett (US 6,005,597, Dec. 21, 1999) (Ans.
7);
4. Claims 7-9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hendricks ‘131 (US 7,134,131 B1, Nov. 7, 2006)
(Ans. 7-10); and
5. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hendricks ‘131 and Barrett (Ans. 10-11).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6 and 8-14. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

4
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Hendricks ‘350 does not teach “index data is continuously and
repeatedly broadcast over the entire area” and “receive information the user
requested in user profile data.” Br. 6 (emphasis added).
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
because Hendricks ‘131 does not teach “index data is continuously and
repeatedly broadcast over the entire area” and “receive information the user
requested in user profile data.” Br. 9 (emphasis added).
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 1 because Hendricks ‘350 does not teach “monitoring (at a receiver
having a unique identification number) a broadcast index signal containing
tuning data, AND then downloading only designated information (at the
receiver having a unique identification number) upon ‘detecting the unique
identification number associated with the receiver, in the broadcast index
signal’.” Br. 6 (emphasis omitted in part).
4. Appellant contends that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 1 because Hendricks ‘350 does not teach the claimed “monitoring a
broadcast index signal containing tuning data” and “detecting the unique
identification number associated with the receiver in the broadcast index
signal.” Br. 7-8. In particular, Appellant contends that Hendricks ‘350’s
“Set top terminal 220 does not monitor signal 276 to detect identifier 928.”
Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted).
5. Appellant contends that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 7 because Hendricks ‘131 does not teach the claimed “receiving a
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

5
program signal containing program data, associated with a program, using
the stored tuning data.” Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellant admits that “the
section of Hendricks ‘131 that describes the program control information
signal (col. 41, line 48 - col. 45, line 20) may note that an ‘event ID’ or
‘global channel ID’ is included in TABLE B”, but contends that Hendricks
‘131 “does not teach or suggest that the transceiver receives from the
wireless communication system a broadcast index signal containing the
unique identification number associated with the receiver and tuning data,
and stores only the corresponding tuning data in memory.” Id. at 10
(emphasis in original omitted, emphasis ours).
Issues on Appeal
1. Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that
Hendricks ‘350 describes “monitoring a broadcast index signal containing
tuning data” and “detecting the unique identification number associated with
the receiver in the broadcast index signal,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that
Hendricks ‘131 describes “receiving a program signal containing program
data, associated with a program, using the stored tuning data,” as recited in
claim 7?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s above
contentions 1-5. With regard to claims 1-14, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

6
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
As to Appellant’s contentions 1 and 2, the arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language. In other words,
Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in the claims. For example,
claims 1 and 7 do not recite “continuously and repeatedly” or “profile data.”
Ans. 12, 16.
As to contention 3, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not recite monitoring/downloading “at
the receiver having a unique identification number.” Ans. 13.
As to Appellant’s contention 4 relating to “monitoring” and
“detecting,” we note that the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of
Hendricks ‘350 and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding
citations to various parts of the reference for teaching the feature disputed in
Appellant’s contention (Ans. 12-16). For emphasis, we note that the
Examiner cites to portions of Hendricks ‘350 in column 17, line 50 to
column 18, line 7 that describe a set top terminal (220) which receives a
program control information signal 276 that has data for program schedule
and program description in the form of the bit-level format message 920. Id.
In particular, Hendricks ‘350 describes that message 920 includes the set top
terminal identifier field 928 that is detected by the set top terminal. Id. The
Examiner finds that
In a cable television distribution system, there are hundreds of
set top terminals and for a particular set top terminal to receive
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

7
a message sent from a headend (central facility), the particular
set top terminal must constantly observe (monitor and detect) a
communication line in order to retrieve the message intended
for that particular set top terminal. The set top terminal is
comparing its own address against the address in the messages,
and grabs the message that matches its own address and/or
identifier. Hence, in order for the set top terminal to receive the
designated messages, the set top terminal must first detect the
address and/or identifier contained in the message matches its
own address and/or identifier. And in order for the set top
terminal to detect the address and/or identifier in the message,
the set top terminal is constantly observing (monitoring) the
messages send from the head-end or other set top terminals.
Thus, Hendricks discloses the “monitoring” and “detecting”
steps in order for the set top terminal to receive program
information signals that designated to that particular set top
terminal.

Ans. 14 (citing to Hendricks ‘350, col. 10, ll. 56-67; col. 17, ll. 58-60; and
col. 20, line 50-col. 21, line 15).

We agree with the Examiner that Hendricks ‘350’s set top box
monitors the messages and detects the messages that match its own address
and/or identifier. Ans. 15. Thus, we find that Hendricks ‘350 teaches the
monitoring/detecting limitations as recited in claim 1.
As to Appellant’s contention 5, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6,
16-17) that Hendricks ‘131 explicitly discloses that the program control
information signal includes local authorization code 197' that is provided by
the head-end in response to an order placed by the user. Ans. 17-18. The
local authorization code 197' has a unique address that corresponds to the
user terminal and an information field 407 for the authorized programs that
Appeal 2010-012161
Application 10/725,149

8
the set top terminal is subscribed (see Hendricks ‘131, col. 23, ll. 22-25; col.
29, ll.9-17; Fig, 13).
As to Appellant’s contention that the transceiver “stores only the
corresponding tuning data,” Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. Claim 7 does not recite “only.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 7.
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14 because
claims 2-6 and 8-14 are not argued separately and fall together with claims 1
and 7, respectively, for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 3-5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc