Ex Parte Patil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12839529 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/839,529 07/20/2010 Abhishek P. Patil
36738 7590 10/03/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200902941.01 8366
EXAMINER
BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHISHEK P. PATIL,
DJUNG N. NGUYEN, and XIANGPENG JING
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-21. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Dowens (US 2011/0023069 Al; publ. Jan. 27, 2011) and Finseth (US
2005/0028207 Al; publ. Feb. 3, 2005). Ans. 2-9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dowens, Finseth, and Morris (US 2011/0107382 Al; publ. May 5, 2011).
Ans. 9.
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dowens, Finseth, and Unger (US 2008/0183815 Al; publ. July 31, 2008).
Ans. 10.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Dowens, Finseth, and Rosenberg (US 2006/0161621 Al; publ.
July 20, 2006). Ans. 10-13.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dowens, Finseth, Rosenberg, and Sezan (US 2006/0174277 Al; publ. Aug.
3, 2006). Ans. 13-14.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "alerting users of Internet-enabled CE
devices such as but not limited to TVs, digital radios, and game consoles
when desired Internet content becomes available." Spec. 1 :4---6. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below, with the disputed limitation emphasized:
1. CE device comprising:
at least one processor configured for controlling at least
one display and for communicating with the Internet through at
least one network interface;
the processor configured for accessing at least one
computer readable storage medium with instructions which when
executed by the processor configure the processor for:
establishing a user-centric account with an Internet
Protocol TV (IPTV) system server; and
establishing a privacy policy by which an affiliated user
affiliated with the account selects among plural options to
provide viewing activity of the user to other users and to send
comments pertaining to viewing activity to other users, such that
the processor when accessing the instructions is configured to
present a first user interface (UI) on the display to enable the
2
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
affiliated user to establish a first privacy setting for viewing
activity and a second UI on the display listing a first option
selectable to establish the first privacy setting for comments in
addition to viewing activity and at least a second option
selectable to establish a second, different privacy setting for
comments.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-8 AND 21 OVER DO WENS AND
FINSETH
The Examiner finds Dowens and Finseth teach all limitations of claim
1. Ans. 3-5; see also Ans. 14--15. The Examiner finds Finseth teaches the
disputed limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Finseth i-fi-1 81-82, 85-86); see also Ans.
15 "a second UI can be used to set the same policy for comments that was
set for the viewing activity").
Appellants present the following principal argument:
The relied-upon paragraphs in relevant part simply state that
among other items; users can share comments (paragraph 81 ).
Paragraph 86, which summarizes the Uis discussed later on in
Finseth, states that the user first selects the group with whom to
share viewing preference information, then what type of
information to share with that group, including comments. There
is no indication in these teachings or in the Uis shown in the
figures described following the summary of paragraph 86 (figure
9-11 and 13-16) of a UI listing (1) a first option selectable to
establish the first privacy setting for comments in addition to
viewing activity, and (2) a second option selectable to establish
a second, different privacy setting for comments. In fact, none of
the Uis in Fin[s]eth so much as contain the word "comments",
much less the options in the combination recited in Claim 1.
App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1-2; see also Appellants' Drawings, Figs. 5
and 7.
3
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
We do not see any error in the Examiner's finding that Finseth teaches
the disputed limitation.
In considering the disclosure of a reference, "it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom." In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Finseth (i-f 81) discloses:
A user must also select what information to share with the
selected recipient, as represented by box 134. A user may choose
to share the entire contents of his/her user-specific sub-history
table with the selected recipient. A user may choose to tell the
recipient only about a specific television program. Using remote
control 86 (FIG. 3) or another input device such as an infrared
keyboard, a user can also share specific comments or reviews
regarding a television program.
Finseth (i-f 86) discloses: "A member of a group can select to share
specific television program information including attached notes or
comments, the entire contents of their respective selection history table, or
summary preference information similarly to sharing viewing preference
information with individual users."
Appellants' argument does not show error in the contested finding in
view of Finseth's disclosures of an option to provide viewing activity of the
user to other users, and an option to send comments pertaining to viewing
activity to other users. Finseth i1i1 81, 86. An ordinarily skilled artisan
would have reasonably understood Finseth's option to provide viewing
activity of the user to other users together with Finseth's option to provide
(or not provide) comments pertaining to the viewing activity to other users
discloses the functionality for the user to select these options. Finseth' s
option to provide (or not provide) comments pertaining to viewing activity
4
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
allows the user to select the same or a different setting for comments as the
setting for activity (activity may be shared or not shared; comments may be
shared or not shared). Thus, this appeal hinges on whether or not a skilled
artisan would have understood that Finseth further teaches allowing the user
to select these options in a second UI on the display, as claimed.
We find that Finseth's disclosures, to a skilled artisan, convey well-
known reasonable ways to allow the user to select the disclosed options. We
recognize that Finseth does not explicitly illustrate Uis identical to those
disclosed in Appellants' patent application in Figures 5 and 7. Nonetheless,
the lack of a specific illustration of these Uis in Finseth does not preclude a
finding that, a skilled artisan would infer (Preda, 401 F.2d at 826) Finseth
teaches the options discussed in Finseth (i-fi-f 81, 86) may be presented in
well-known reasonable ways, including presenting both options on an UI on
the display.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-8 and 21, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 17, 19, AND 20 OVER DO WENS,
FINSETH, AND ROSENBERG
The Examiner finds Dowens, Finseth, and Rosenberg teach all
limitations ofclaim 17. Ans. 10-12; see also Ans. 15-16.
Claim 17 recites the following disputed limitation:
presenting a first user interface (UI) on a display of the CE
device to enable a user of the CE device to establish a first
privacy setting for viewing activity and a second UI on the
display listing a first option selectable to establish the first
privacy setting for comments in addition to viewing activity and
at least a second option selectable to establish a second, different
privacy setting for comments.
5
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
Appellants present the same principal argument for claim 17 as
presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 5---6, Reply Br. 3.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's finding that Finseth teaches
the disputed limitation for reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
That is, the lack of a specific illustration of claim 17 's recited UI in Finseth
does not preclude a finding that, a skilled artisan would infer (Preda, 401
F .2d at 826) Finseth teaches the options discussed in Finseth (i-fi-f 81, 86) may
be presented in well-known reasonable ways, including presenting both
options on an UI on the display.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17, as well as
claims 19 and 20, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 10 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, AND
MORRIS
Appellants do not argue claim 10 with particularity. See App. Br. 3-
6, Reply Br. 1-3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 for
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 11 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, AND
UNGER
Appellants do not argue claim 11 with particularity. See App. Br. 3-
6, Reply Br. 1-3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 for
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
6
Appeal2015-008249
Application 12/839,529
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 18 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH,
ROSENBERG, AND SEZAN
Appellants do not argue claim 18 with particularity. See App. Br. 3-
6, Reply Br. 1-3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 for
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 7.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-21 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
7