Ex Parte Rambo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2012

10839884 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENNETH RAMBO
____________

Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 17, 19-28, 30, 33, and 34. Claims 18, 29, 31, and 32 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a display system used in a
communications network for providing contents related to video
programming and an instant messaging (IM) application (see Spec. ¶¶
[0005] – [0008]). Claim 17, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
17. A communications network having multiple users
using an instant messaging (IM) application, comprising:
a display device for each of the users;
first and second display windows at the display device
for simultaneously displaying multiple content, the first display
window displaying video programming content and the second
display window displaying content from the IM application,
wherein the IM content comprises a selectable telephone
communications display element, so that upon selection of the
display element a telephone communications line is established
over the communications network between plural users of the
IM application;
a telephone device for each of the users separate from the
display device, wherein the telephone communications line is
connected to the telephone device, and wherein the telephone
communications line is configured for the plural users to each
have a telephone conversation separate from content displayed
at their respective display devices, but at the same time as the
plural viewers are each viewing content at their respective
display devices; and
Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

3
a set top box for each of the users and connecting each
user at the telephone device to the telephone communications
line, and for detecting dial tone on the telephone line;
wherein a user enters personal data pertaining to that user
at a user profile screen displayed at the display device prior to
receiving instant messaging content, and wherein the entered
data includes a telephone number of that user's telephone
device, and wherein the telephone number is dialed in response
to another of the users selecting the telephone communications
display element in order to establish the telephone line between
the plural users; and
wherein the telephone number is dialed only if there is
dial tone detected by the set top box at the telephone device of
the user selecting the telephone communications display
element.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 17, 19-24, 27, 28, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 7,143,428 B1) and Hayden
(US 4,953,159). (See Ans. 3-8).
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruck, Hayden, and Tota (US 2008/0077482 A1). (See
Ans. 8-9).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruck, Hayden, and Bogard (US 6,757,365 B1). (See
Ans. 9-10).
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruck, Hayden, and Burke (US 6,597,785 B1). (See Ans.
10-11).

Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

4
Appellant’s Contentions
1. With respect to claim 17, Appellant contends that the
combination of Bruck and Hayden does not teach or suggest all the recited
features because: a) Hayden discloses that the same user enters the personal
data in a user profile screen and selects a telephone number to set up the
conference instead of the claimed using conference calling in conjunction
with instant messaging recited in the claim (Br. 6); and b) Hayden uses a
processor for establishing a telephone connection based on time division
multiplexing, instead of the recited set top box which detects a dial tone (Br.
7).
2. With respect to claim 33, Appellant further asserts that Bruck
includes no “session set up screen” and Hayden’s user would not enter any
data to indicate whether that person will accept calls because that user is the
one setting up a conference call (Br. 8-9).
3. Regarding claim 25, Appellant contends that Tota is not
properly combinable with Bruck and Hayden and the instant messaging (IM)
disclosed in paragraph 78 of Tota is used for requesting content submission
and not for aggregating IM content and the associated programming tracking
(Br. 9).
4. Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim 30 and
dependent claims 19-24, 26-28, and 34 based on the same contentions made
for claim 17 (Br. 8, 10), allowing these claims to fall with representative
claim 17.
Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

5
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Bruck and Hayden because the combination of references does not teach or
suggest the disputed features recited in claims 17, 25, and 33?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 11-19). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to the above contention 1a, the Examiner responds that
Bruck was relied on for teaching a modem pool connecting a remote server
with a communication network, a browser device, and a telephone
connection that allow a user to initiate an IM session to a host server (see
Ans. 10). The Examiner further asserts that the teachings of Hayden relate
to a display element shown in Figures 7-9 wherein the user enters data in the
conference window to indicate whether the user will accept the call and
cause the processor to detect the incoming call and alert the other user of the
call (Ans. 13-14). We specifically agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that
the conference window described by Hayden, which includes the functions
of user data entry and dialing in order to establish the telephone line (col. 11,
l. 28 - col. 12, l. 60), provides for the claimed user profile screen and
establishing telephone lines among the users.
Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

6
Regarding Appellant’s above contention 1b, the Examiner further
points to the disclosure of the modem pool 90 in Bruck and explains that a
plurality of browsing devices 10 (shown in Figure 1 to include a set top box
12) are coupled to the modem pool 90 via bi-directional data and telephone
connections (Ans. 14-15). We also agree with the Examiner that Bruck
discloses the claimed set top box connected to a user for connecting to the
telephone communication line and detecting a dial tone on the line. In other
words, Bruck teaches the claimed elements related to the set top box and
how the numbers are dialed whereas the teaching value of Hayden is in
showing the specific information entered by the user in a user profile screen.
With respect to the above contention 2, we also agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions asserting that Bruck teaches the
structure of the user terminal and Hayden provides the details of a session
set up screen (Ans. 15-16). The Examiner has further identified the relevant
portions of each reference and has properly concluded that the proposed
combination would result in the claimed features. The Examiner has
specifically provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to
various portions of Bruck and Hayden for teaching or suggesting each
disputed feature (Ans. 7-8, 15-16).
Regarding the above contention 3, we also agree with the Examiner
that Figure 14 of Bruck shows a chat system including a chat client and the
related servers for maintaining a table of the various participants and
facilitating chat services including survey questions (Ans. 17 (citing Bruck,
col. 9, ll. 33-44 and col. 10, l. 4 – col. 11, l. 14)). The Examiner further
relies on Tota for teaching a survey server for performing survey functions
related to IM contents (Ans. 17-18 (citing Tota, ¶¶ [0059], [0068], [0078],
Appeal 2010-006315
Application 10/839,884

7
and [0079])). Therefore, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 18), the disclosed
chat server and the host server of Bruck modified by the survey server of
Tota store the instant messaging content, which includes survey information,
and provide the survey content to the chat room users display as well as
processing the instant messaging content to be used for survey and tracking
purposes.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Bruck and Hayden, alone
or in combination with Tota. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 17 and 33 over Bruck and Hayden, of claims
19-24, 26-28, and 34 falling therewith, and of claim 25 over Bruck, Hayden,
and Tota.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 17, 19-28, 30, 33, and
34 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke