Ex Parte Sezan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 15, 2010

09804612 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 15, 2010)

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.
09/804,612 03/12/2001 M. Ibrahim Sezan KLR 7146.115 3154
7590 07/16/2010
Kevin L. Russell
Suite 1600
601 SW Second Ave.
Portland, OR 97204-3157
EXAMINER
CHUONG, TRUC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IBRAHIM M. SEZAN, RICHARD QIAN, and PETER J.L. VAN
BEEK
____________

Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,6121
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

C. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed March 12, 2001. The real party in interest is Sharp
Laboratories of America, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 2-24, which are all the claims remaining in
the application, as claim 1 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates to a system for managing audiovisual
information, and in particular to a system for audiovisual information
browsing, filtering, searching, archiving, and personalization. (Spec., 1:5-7.)

Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A method of using a system with at least one of audio,
image, and a video comprising a plurality of frames comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing an electronically stored user description
scheme containing user preference data for a predetermined user and
at least one descriptor for identification of said predetermined user,
said user preference data indicative of expected content preferences
for an identified said predetermined user;
(b) providing at least one of the following:
(i) a program description scheme containing
information related to at least one of information regarding
interrelationships between a plurality of said frames,
characteristics of the content of a plurality of said frames,
characteristics of the content of said audio, characteristics of the
content of said image, characteristics of the content of said
video;
(ii) a system description scheme containing
information regarding at least one of available videos, available
categories, available channels, available users, available
images, capabilities of a device for providing said at least one
Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

3
of said audio, said image, and said video to a user, relationship
between at least two of said video, said program description
scheme, and said user description scheme, relationship between
at least two of said audio, said program description scheme, and
said user description scheme, relationship between at least two
of said image, said program description scheme, and said user
description scheme;
(c) an electronic device selecting without user input at
least one of a video, and image, and audio based upon an interaction
of said user description scheme with at least one of said program
description scheme or said system description scheme.

Appellants appeal the following two (2) rejections:
1. Claims 2-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oosterhout (US Patent No. 6,405,371 B1, June 11, 2002) and Yoshida (US
Patent No. 6,137,486, Oct. 24, 2000).
2. Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oosterhout
and Yoshida, further in view of Brown (US Patent No. 6,286,141 B1, Sept.
4, 2001).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
Yoshida
1a. Yoshida discloses that “[t]he ‘Program Lock’ display contains a
password, second restrict data to be set by the viewer of the TV receiver
(Rating), and 1-bit data (ON/OFF). . . . [T]he password should be known
only by the child’s parents or guardians.” (Col. 9, ll. 9-14.)
1b. In Yoshida, “[i]f there was no password, children would be free to
change second restrict data . . . and consequently be able to view
inappropriate video scenes.” (Col. 9, ll. 14-17.)
Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

4
1c. In Yoshida, “[p]arents or guardians can set second restrict data
and 1-bit data by using the remote control device to input the correct
password.” (Col. 9, ll. 17-19.)

Oosterhout
2a. Oosterhout discloses that “the microprocessor searches in the
EPG database and for each television channel, the next program that it will
be broadcasting . . . . [T]he ‘next’ overview is combined with the marking
feature.” (Col. 4, ll. 42-49.)
2b. Oosterhout discloses:
If the activated display item is an on-screen button, a step 308 is
performed in which it is checked whether it is the “theme”
button (42 in FIG. 4). In that case, the program executes a sub-
program 309 which allows the user to input the type of
television program he is currently interested in . . . . Having
learned the desired type of program, the sub-program 309
searches in the EPG data the television channels that are
currently transmitting such a program, and derives the relevant
positions of the associated sub-images on the mosaic screen
from the linking information. Then, in a step 310, the respective
sub-images are perceptibly marked on the screen.
(Col. 3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 14.)

ANALYSIS
We selected claim 21 as representative of the claims on appeal.
Claims 2-20 and 22-24 were not separately argued (see App. Br. 6-10) in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, claims 2-20 and
22-24 stands or fall with claim 21.

Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

5
Issue1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Oosterhout and Yoshida discloses user preference data indicative of
expected content preferences for an identified predetermined user?

Appellants contend that “the Examiner has failed to show how, in the
proposed modification of Oosterhout by Yoshida, the contents of
Oosterhout’s memory (the asserted user preference data) indicating the
mosaic images to be marked as matching the desired user-selection of, e.g.
‘movies’ would then reflect expected preferences of a user.” (App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner found that Yoshida inherently teaches that after [the]
user enter his/her password(s), he/she can view the user preference data
indicative of expected content preferences for the identified of the
predetermined user because the display will view a list of movies or
particular channels, which were preset/predetermined by the user.” (Ans.
13.)

While Appellants contend that Oosterhout does not disclose any
“expected content preferences” of a predetermined user, it appears that the
Examiner is actually relying on Yoshida, not Oosterhout, to disclose this
feature. (see Ans. 13.)
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we broadly but
reasonably construe the claimed “expected content” as denoting any content
that is believed, usually for good reason, to be provided. (Claim 21).3

3 During ex parte prosecution, the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)
determines the scope of the claims by giving the language “the broadest
reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

6
Here, the Examiner reasons that Yoshida inherently teaches expected content
preferences through the use of a password to prevent children from
accessing inappropriate scenes or channels (Ans. 13.) We agree. Because
the parent’s password in Yoshida prevents access to inappropriate content,
expected content follows for a predetermined user (FF 1a-1c). As such, we
find that the claimed user preference data indicative of expected content
preferences reads on at least Yoshida’s parental control features.
In addition, Oosterhout discloses that a user can select a “theme”,
such as movies, for the type of program he is interested in (FF 2b). We find
that such a selection also leads to an expected content.

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Yoshida and Oosterhout discloses an electronic device selecting without user
input at least one of video, an image, and audio based upon an interaction of
said user description scheme with at least one of said program description
scheme or said system description scheme?

Appellants argue that in Oosterhout “not only is the search made in
response to a user input, i.e., pressing a ‘next’ button (See Oosterhout at col.
4 lines 37-38) but the search is made without interaction between the ‘theme
data’ stored in memory.” (App. Br. 8.)
The Examiner found:

interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

7
Oosterhout also teaches that the microprocessor 25 will search
in the EPG [Electronic Program Guide] database and for each
TV channel, the “What’s On Next” program that will be
broadcasting, e.g., col. 4 lines 40-49; it clearly means that the
electronic device using microprocessor 25 automatically
searches for upcoming programs without actual user input at
that time.
(Ans. 10.) We agree with the Examiner.
While the user in Oosterhout may press a “next” button to see the
search results, it is Oosterhout’s microprocessor sub-program that selects the
next video/image/audio to display on the “What’s On Next” overview (FF
2a). Oosterhout’s “What’s On Next” overview is based on both the “theme”
selected by the user (i.e., user preference data) and the stored EPG (i.e.,
program descriptions)(FF 2a-2b).
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). “The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” Id. at 416.
Here, the claimed “electronically stored user description scheme”
reads on Oosterhout’s sub-program that allows the user to input the type of
television program he is currently interested in. In addition, the claimed
“selecting without user input . . . based upon an interaction of said user
description scheme with at least one of said program description scheme”
reads on Oosterhout’s sub-program searching in the EPG data for a program
meeting the inputted theme.
Appeal 2009-000771
Application 09/804,612

8
Thus, based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 21. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claim 21,
as well as associated dependent claims 2-20 and 22-24.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

erc

Kevin L. Russell
Suite 1600
601 SW Second Ave.
Portland, OR 97204-3157