Ex Parte Nichols

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2011

11308354 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GRANT ALLEN LEE NICHOLS
___________

Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Grant Allen Lee Nichols (Appellant) seeks our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1 and 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “a method for promoting trade in international bulk
goods and related services.” Spec. [Para 1].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of commissioning an agent engaging in
international trade in bulk goods and services comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing an interactive television station configured to
broadcast video programming;
(b) creating a video listing for bulk sale of goods or services
comprising terms and conditions;
(c) broadcasting the video listing on the interactive television
station to an interactive television configured to display the
video listing;
(d) broadcasting on the interactive television station on-demand
access to regulations governing the international purchase

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Feb. 28, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 13,
2010).

Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

3
and delivery of the goods or services in the video listing
through the interactive television;
(e) receiving a request through the interactive television, the
request comprising commissioning the requester as an agent
of a manufacturer on a specific bulk sale consistent with the
video listing;
(f) conveying an order comprising the request to the
manufacturer for acceptance;
(g) accepting payment for the specific bulk sale; and
(h) transmitting payment to the manufacturer and commissioned
agent.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ogasawara
LaCour

US 6,543,052 B1
US 2004/0010452 A1
Apr. 1, 2003
Jan. 15, 2004
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogasawara and LaCour.

ISSUE
The issue is whether claims 1 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Ogasawara and LaCour. Specifically, the issue is whether the
Examiner erred in finding that Ogasawara teaches step (c) of claim 1.

Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification does not contain an express definition of
“broadcast.”
2. A definition of “broadcast” is “2: to make widely known 3: to
transmit or make public by means of radio or television.” See
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 144 (10th Ed. 1998.)
(Second and Third entry for “broadcast.”)
3. Ogasawara describes a set top box (STB) that includes:
a tuner 82 . . . for conventional television reception
capabilities. The tuner 82 is further configured to
provide Internet connection with a Web server 72
via the ISP 42, through the satellite 16 medium or
via cable through the cable provider 20. The STB
10 is also equipped with a modem (not shown) for
communicating with the Web server 72 via the ISP
22, though telephone subscriber line 24.
Col. 6, ll. 12-20. See also col. 3, ll. 57-65 and Fig. 4.
4. Ogasawara describes an Internet shopping function of a set top box
(STB) (see col. 9, l. 14 – col. 10, l. 16), in which a user selects a
web site for an Internet shopping site (col. 9, ll. 14-29).
5. Ogasawara states: “Once a shopping Internet site has been
specified, the Web server downloads the corresponding client
purchase transaction program and/or HTML text 104 to the STB
Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

5
through the Web browser.” Col. 9, ll. 30-33. See also col. 6, ll.
21-26.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether Ogasawara teaches
step (c) of claim 1. See Ans. 11 and Br. 17-18. The dispute focuses on
whether Ogasawara teaches broadcasting on the interactive television
station the video listing. Id. In the rejection the Examiner cites column 9,
lines 14-29 of Ogasawara as teaching this step and states: “[b]ased upon the
user’s selection and request the interactive broadcasting TV station
broadcasts and displays via STB on a television [10] screen the selected
products/listing of products.” Ans. 6.
We agree with the Appellant (see Br. 18-20) that’s that the cited
passage of Ogasawara does not teach broadcasting on the interactive
television station the video listing. Initially, we note that the Specification
does not contain an express definition of “broadcast.” FF 1. We note the
definition of “broadcast” requires that something be made widely known or
be transmitted publicly by radio or television. FF 2. Therefore, giving the
claim the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification
(), step (c) requires an act of making the video listing widely known on the
interactive television station. See In re NTP, Inc. 99 USPQ2d 1481, 1486
(Fed. Cir, 2011) “[claim] construction cannot be divorced from the
specification and the record evidence”
Given our construction of “broadcast” above, we agree with the
Appellant (see Br. 17-18) that Ogasawara’s description in column 9, lines
14-29 of downloading a client purchase transaction program via the Internet
Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

6
after a user selects an Internet shopping website does not teach step (c).
While Ogasawara does describe the STB receiving conventional television
broadcasts using a tuner (FF 3), Ogasawara describes that the client purchase
transaction program, which the Examiner seems to equate to the video
listing (see Ans. 5-6), is downloaded to the user’s STB through an Internet
connection from a Web Server 72 upon the user’s request. FF 4-5. We find
that this description does not teach the claimed step of broadcasting the
video listing on the interactive television station as the client purchase
transaction program is only “made known” or transmitted to the requesting
user’s STB via the Internet and is not “widely made known” on the
interactive television station. The issue of whether a webcast would be a
form of broadcast does not arise since there is no evidence that Ogasawara
even envisioned such a mode of communication.
The Examiner does not rely upon LaCour to teach step (c) of claim 1
(see Ans. 6-7) or provide any other evidence or reasoning with logical
underpinnings to teach this step. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 1, and claim 5, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ogasawara and LaCour.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 5 is reversed.
Appeal 2010-011161
Application 11/308,354

7
REVERSED

hh