Ex Parte Noetsele

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10383932 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/383,932 03/07/2003 Robert Van Noetsele 019A.0009.U1(US) 2094
29683 7590 10/31/2012
HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
SCHNURR, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 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 ROBERT VAN NOETSELE
____________

Appeal 2011-006611
Application 10/383,9321
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns a signal formatting apparatus for use
in a television transmission system. The apparatus receives enhanced

1 The real party in interest is Chello Broadband NV.
2 Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-006611
Application 10/383,932

2
content streams in a predefined input format, and outputs enhanced content
data in a plurality of formats for transmission to receivers of respective types
(Spec. 3). A distribution unit is configured to distribute triggers at the times
when it is desired for the interactive content to be played out (Spec. 8).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A television transmission system comprising:
a signal formatter configured to receive an enhanced content stream in
a predefined input format, and to process the enhanced content stream to put
the enhanced content stream into a plurality of output formats that comprise
at least a first output format, a second output format, and a third output
format; and
a distribution unit, wherein the signal formatter is configured to output
to the distribution unit the enhanced content stream in the first output format,
the second output format, and the third output format, wherein the
distribution unit is configured to distribute the enhanced content stream in
the first output format, the second output format, and the third output format
to receivers of respective format types; and wherein the distribution unit is
further configured to distribute to the receivers at least one trigger indicating
to the receivers when to play out the enhanced content relative to a video
stream.

REFERENCES
Rudraraju US 2002/0111876 A1 Aug. 15, 2002
Norstrom US 2002/0170067 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
Barone US 2003/0066081 A1 Apr. 3, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Norstrom in view of Barone.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Norstrom in view of Barone and Rudraraju.
Appeal 2011-006611
Application 10/383,932

3
ISSUE
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the interactive television (ITV) data
taught by Barone cannot be equated with both the “enhanced content” and
the “triggers” recited in the claims (App. Br. 14-15).
Appellant’s argument presents us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Norstrom and Barone teach or fairly suggest
a distribution unit configured to distribute to receivers at least one trigger
indicating to the receivers when to play out enhanced content relative to a
video stream?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

Appeal 2011-006611
Application 10/383,932

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 9 both recite that the distribution unit
distributes to the receivers at least one trigger indicating to the receivers
when to play out the enhanced content.
We consider the Examiner’s finding that Barone teaches this claim
limitation (Ans. 4) to be erroneous. Barone teaches an encoder that embeds
ITV data into a video program (¶ [0016]). Barone teaches that “[t]he ITV
data may be triggers, HTTP, XML, JAVA, or JAVA SCRIPT commands,
URLs, and/or other type of ITV links, triggers, data sources, timing
information, and data conventional in the art” (id.). According to Barone,
then, any triggers present are part of the ITV data. Barone thus fails to teach
both enhanced content and one or more triggers indicating when to play the
enhanced content, because the triggers of Barone are part of the enhanced
content, not distinct from it.
We find that the combination of Norstrom and Barone fails to teach
all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 12.
Further, we have reviewed Rudraraju and we find that it does not
remedy the deficiencies of Norstrom and Barone. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Norstrom and Barone does not teach or fairly
suggest a distribution unit configured to distribute to receivers at least one
trigger indicating to the receivers when to play out enhanced content relative
to a video stream.
Appeal 2011-006611
Application 10/383,932

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc