Ex Parte Straub

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12544357 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/544,357 08/20/2009
98417 7590 02/25/2016
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Albert Straub
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.
TWC09-18/1033-29 9208
EXAMINER
TILAHUN, ALAZAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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 ALBERT STRAUB
Appeal2014-003343
Application 12/544,357
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003343
Application 12/544,357
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 8, 10-18, 20-22, and 25. Claims 6, 7, 9, 19, 23, and 24 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to user selection of software components in a
television set-top box. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for allowing user selection of interactive video
software components in a television set-top box operatively
coupled to a video content network, the method comprising the
steps of:
affording the user a selection of interactive video
software components to run on the set-top box by allowing the
user to initiate a selection routine on the set-top box, the
selection routine providing an interface for the user to select,
from among a plurality of interactive video software
components, one or more interactive video software
components to run on the set-top box;
loading the one or more selected interactive video
software components onto the set-top box, the one or more
selected interactive video software components being delivered
from a remote node over the video content network;
obtaining a local list of interactive video software
components to load on the set-top box;
establishing a connection between the set-top box and a
configuration database; and
2
Appeal2014-003343
Application 12/544,357
when at least a given one of the interactive video
software components to load on the set-top box does not match
a corresponding interactive video software component stored in
the configuration database, updating the given one of the
interactive video software components.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rakib
Prus et al.
Khandelwal et al.
D'Souza et al.
McCarthy et al.
US 2004/0181811 Al
US 2005/0144651 Al
US 7,058,964 B2
US 2007 /0028265 Al
US 2008/0034392 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Sept. 16, 2004
June 30, 2005
June 6, 2006
Feb. 1, 2007
Feb. 7,2008
Claims 1, 3--4, 8, 10-13, 15-18, 20-22, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of
D'Souza.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCarthy in view of D' Souza and further in view of Prus.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCarthy in view of D' Souza and further in view of
Rakib.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCarthy in view of D' Souza and further in view of
Khandelwal.
3
Appeal2014-003343
Application 12/544,357
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant maintains:
More particularly, the Examiner continues to assert that
D' Souza discloses the claimed obtaining step in paragraph
[0022], where D'Souza describes the loading of set top OS
software 214, presentation software 216, menu software 218,
and application launcher software 220 on the set-top terminal
202. Examiner's Answer, p. 4. Moreover, the Examiner
further continues to assert that D' Souza discloses the claimed
updating step in paragraphs [0037] and [0038], where D'Souza
describes the provisioning of VOD content to a set top terminal
when the set-top terminal does not have VOD client software.
Examiner's Answer, pp. 4 and 5.
(Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellant that the proffered showings in the
D'Souza reference do not support the Examiner's findings and conclusion of
obviousness of the claimed steps of"' obtaining a local list of interactive
video software components to load on the set top box"' and "'updating the
given one of the interactive video software components."' (Reply Br. 2-3).
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
respective dependent claims. Independent claims 21 and 25 contain similar
limitations as independent claim 1. As a result, we cannot sustain the
rejections of independent claims 21 and 25 and their respective dependent
claims.
The Examiner has not identified how the additional references relied
upon for the dependent claims 2, 5, and 14 remedy the noted deficiency.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 5, and 14.
4
Appeal2014-003343
Application 12/544,357
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 20-22, and 25
based upon obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 8, 10-
18, 20-22, and 25 are reversed.
REVERSED
5