Ex Parte Yuzawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 22, 2010

09812163 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEIJI YUZAWA
____________

Appeal 2009-006023
Application 09/812,163
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 25-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 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 2009-006023
Application 09/812,163

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is an information processing method
where information items can be displayed in an optimum order and
information can be deleted or stored in a storage device in an optimum
order.
Independent claim 25 reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
25. A method of transmitting items containing content
information to a user terminal and reproducing a selected one of
said transmitted items at a time selected by a user of said user
terminal, comprising:

providing a user terminal;

transmitting information items to said user terminal, at least
some of said transmitted items containing content information
including at least one of moving images or audio sound;

at said user terminal, receiving said transmitted items
containing content information and assigning access priorities
to said received items;

selecting some of said received items containing content
information on the basis of information representing said access
priorities;

selectively storing said selected items in said user terminal;

arranging said stored items of information in an order according
to said access priorities; and

at a user-selected time after storing said selected items, user
selecting one of said stored items and causing said at least one
of moving images or audio sound to be reproduced from said
user-selected item.
Appeal 2009-006023
Application 09/812,163

3
REFERENCES
Bedard US 5,801,747 Sep. 1, 1998
Alexander US 6,177,931 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Inoue US 6,185,360 B1 Feb. 6, 2001

The Examiner rejected claims 25-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Bedard, Alexander, and Inoue.
Appellant contends Bedard fails to teach or suggest selecting content
information-containing items based on access priorities, selectively storing
the selected content information in a user terminal, arranging the stored
items in an order according to access priorities and, at a user-selected time
after storing the selected items, causing the items to be reproduced (App. Br.
9); Reply Br.).2 Appellant also contends Bedard is directed to downloaded
electronic program guide (EPG) information that monitors a viewer’s
viewing activities and configures an EPG display in accordance with the
viewer’s viewing preferences (Reply Br. 4). Appellant further asserts one of
ordinary skill in the art “would not consider a reference that relates to
tailoring a downloaded data table of television program listings to disclose
or suggest steps relating to transmitted items containing content information
including at least one of moving images or audio sound” (Reply Br. 5).
Thus, Bedard does not teach or suggest receiving, at the user terminal,
transmitted items containing content information and arranging the stored
information in an order according to access priorities (Reply Br. 6) because
Bedard is not concerned with items containing content information, it is
directed merely to listings in an EPG (Reply 4).

2 The Amended Appeal Brief filed April 7, 2008, is referred to throughout
this opinion.
Appeal 2009-006023
Application 09/812,163

4
The Examiner affirms Bedard does not specifically teach a user
selecting stored items and causing the reproduction of at least one of moving
images or audio from the user-selected items at a user selected time. The
Examiner then states it would be obvious to modify Bedard with Alexander
to teach this feature. (Ans. 14) The Examiner also relies on Inoue to teach a
user selecting one of the stored items (Ans. 6). However, the Examiner has
not stated how, as Appellant contends (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5), to tailor a
system that merely downloads listings in an EPG to transmit items
containing content information including moving images or audio. The
Examiner has merely stated that it would be obvious to combine Bedard
with Alexander and Inoue, without stating how this combination could be
achieved (Ans. 14, 15). Thus, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 25-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25-44 is reversed.

REVERSED

ke

Law Offices
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD NJ 07090-1497