Ex Parte Singh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 12, 2010

10028574 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH SUGRIM SINGH
____________________

Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,5741
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: April 12, 2010
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns a shell within a video receiver for
running at least one script which controls the demodulation of broadcast
programming during associated periods for display, recording, or both of
selected broadcast programming. The scripts are structured to select content
based on user-specified descriptive criteria such as title or description
keyword, together with associated user-defined priorities, applied in cases of
multiple concurrent matches, and user-defined conditions regarding existing
viewing of other content, viewer identity, or the like (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for extending unattended control capabilities for a video
receiver comprising:
a shell for executing scripts controlling demodulation of broadcast
programming; and
a memory containing at least one script including a sequence of
commands for demodulating selected broadcast programming, wherein the
at least one script is executable by the shell to select broadcast programming
for demodulation from among one or more concurrently airing programs
each matching at least one of a plurality of user-specified descriptive
criteria, wherein said at least one script employs associated previously-
defined user priorities or conditions to select between conflicting matches or
routing options.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Harrison US 5,878,222 Mar. 2, 1999
Inaba US 5,880,789 Mar. 9, 1999
2
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

Williams US 5,945,988 Aug. 31, 1999
Kitsukawa US 6,282,713 B Aug. 28, 2001
Holtz US 2002/0053078 A1 May 2, 2002
Zigmond US 6,400,407 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
Lewis US 2003/0040962 A Feb. 27, 2003
Goldschmidt Iki US 6,601,103 B1 Jul. 29, 2003
Liebenow US 6,601,074 B1 Jul. 29, 2003
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition. Microsoft Press, Microsoft
Corporation, pp. 1-3, 1997.
Dictionary.com.:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scripting%20language
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpreter
IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
Edition, Standards Information Network, IEEE Press, pp. 1-3, 2000.

Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Harrison.
Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Goldschmidt.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Kitsukawa.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Zigmond.
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Liebenow.
3
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Inaba.
Claims 24, 25, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Williams.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Holtz.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Lewis.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed November 13, 2007), the Reply
Brief (filed May 16, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed March 19,
2008) for their respective details.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that since the video signals of Harrison are tuned
out of the several being broadcast in response to user-specified channel
information in the profile unit 260, Harrison discloses a script that controls
demodulation of broadcast programming as claimed (Ans. 17).
Appellant contends that Harrison discloses using the signal processing
and selection unit (SPSU) 104 to select one of a plurality of already
demodulated television signals to display or record, since the signal is tuned
and decoded prior to being analyzed (App. Br. 8).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Harrison disclose a shell that executes scripts for controlling the
demodulation of broadcast programming for display and recording?

4
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a shell within a
video receiver for running at least one script which controls the
demodulation of broadcast programming during associated periods for
display, recording, or both of selected broadcast programming. The scripts
are structured to select content based on user-specified descriptive criteria
such as title or description keyword, together with associated user-defined
priorities, applied in cases of multiple concurrent matches, and user-defined
conditions regarding existing viewing of other content, viewer identity, or
the like (Abstract).
Harrison
2. Harrison discloses a personal computer (PC) having a television
technology that enables a PC user to receive and display TV signal by
incorporating a signal processing and selection unit (SPSU) 104 that
includes a plurality of tuners 200 coupled to a plurality of decoding units
240 for receiving, tuning and decoding video signals. Responsive to the
decoded signals 245 and predefined profile information from the profile unit
260, the analyzing units 250 determine whether the video signals being
monitored by the tuning units 200 include predefined items of interest to the
user (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 3, ll. 1-15; 47-67).
3. Harrison discloses that the analyzing unit 250 uses a user
specified predefined list of data including “triggers” and items of channels
stored in the profile unit 260 an the decoded channel data from the decoding
5
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

unit 240 to determine which channels to display to the user. For example,
the user may define a list of text of interest, such as monitoring the business
channel so that anytime the word "Intel" is detected, the tuner automatically
pre-empts the current channel being displayed. The list of data stored in the
profile unit 260 is prioritized so that the user is not overwhelmed with
various channels with predefined items of interest for the user to watch at the
same time (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, ll. 40-57).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he 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. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
6
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, and 31
Independent claim 1 recites “a shell for executing scripts controlling
demodulation of broadcast programming.”
The Examiner finds that the tuning and demodulating disclosed in
Harrison are selected in response to user-specified channel information
within the profile (Ans. 17). The Examiner finds that since the video signals
are tuned out of the several being broadcast in response to user-specified
channel information in the profile unit 260, Harrison discloses a script that
controls demodulation of broadcast programming as claimed (Ans. 17).
Appellant contends that Harrison discloses using the signal processing
and selection unit (SPSU) 104 to select one of a plurality of already
demodulated television signals to display or record, since the signal is tuned
and decoded prior to being analyzed (App. Br. 8, FF 2).
Although Harrison does disclose a video receiver having a predefined
profile of information including triggers wherein a user may select which
broadcasts are displayed at specific times, Harrison does not disclose that,
prior to demodulation of the signal, a shell executes a script that selects
broadcasts to be demodulated. Specifically, Harrison discloses that,
responsive to the decoded signals 245, the analyzing unit 250 determines
whether the video signals being monitored by the tuning units 200 include
predefined items of interest to the user (FF 2).
We find that Harrison does not teach all the limitations of independent
claims 1 or that of independent claims 8, 15 and 22, having limitations of
similar scope. Thus, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3,
7
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Harrison, and we will not sustain the rejection.
Claims 2, 4- 7, 9, 12-14, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-30
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
15, and 22 from which claims 2, 4- 7, 9, 12-14, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-30
depend, respectively. We have reviewed the additional references applied
by the Examiner to reject these claims, and find that none of the cited
references teach the limitations deemed to be absent from Harrison.
We therefore will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4-
7, 9, 12-14, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same
reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of parent claims 1, 8, 15 and
22, supra.
CONCLUSION
Harrison does not disclose a shell that executes scripts for controlling
the demodulation of broadcast programming for display and recording.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-31 is reversed.

8
Appeal 2009-006324
Application 10/028,574

REVERSED

ELD

Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
P.O. Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

9