Hattori, Shinobu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

13216375 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020)

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.
13/216,375 08/24/2011 Shinobu Hattori 4002-0490 3998
142241 7590 05/27/2020
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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 SHINOBU HATTORI and NAOHISA KITAZATO
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15, 17, 18, and 20–36. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Saturn Licensing
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “contents of a data broadcasting [] executed
in conjunction with a program or a commercial message (CM), for example,
in a digital television broadcasting.” Spec. 1:12–14. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A transmitting apparatus transmitting contents,
comprising:
a trigger information generating section configured to
generate trigger information on control for an application
program which is executed in conjunction with the contents in a
receiving apparatus, the trigger information including a network
address associated with the application program;
an encoding section configured to encode the contents to
generate an encoded stream;
a multiplexing section configured to multiplex the
encoded stream to generate a multiplexed stream; and
a sending section configured to send the multiplexed
stream,
wherein the trigger information is sent by at least one of
carrying out the encoding with the contents by the encoding
section to embed the trigger information in the encoded stream,
and carrying out the multiplexing by the multiplexing section to
multiplex the trigger information, which has not been encoded
together with the contents, into the multiplexed stream along
with the encoded stream, and
wherein at least one of the trigger information generating
section, the encoding section, the multiplexing section, and the
sending section is implemented via at least one processor.

Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wiklund US 2004/0179553 A1 Sept. 16, 2004
Dakss US 2006/0031914 A1 Feb. 09, 2006
Lei US 7,650,036 B2 Jan. 19, 2010
Kokernak US 2010/0098075 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Patel US 2011/0093900 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Leuratti EP 1487214 A1 Dec. 15, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6–8, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20–36 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wiklund and Kokernak. Final Act. 2–11.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wiklund, Kokernak, and Dakss. Final Act. 11–12.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wiklund, Kokernak, and Lei. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wiklund, Kokernak, and Leuratti. Final Act. 13–14.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wiklund, Kokernak, and Patel. Final Act. 14–16.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 6–8, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20–36
The Examiner finds Wiklund and Kokernak teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2–4; see also Ans. 17–21.
The Examiner finds Wiklund teaches all limitations of claim 1 except
for “the trigger information including a network address associated with the
application program” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3.
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
4
The Examiner finds Kokernak teaches “the trigger information
including a network address associated with the application program” as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Wiklund’s data
localizing apparatus with Kokernak’s system in order to provide
an improved platform for allowing data content on a computer
network to be linked with content on a broadcast network.
Final Act 4 (citing Kokernak ¶ 8).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. “Wiklund can only modify a data stream and issue commands
for causing such modification of the data stream. However, Wiklund does
not at all provide any information that is utilized to control an application
program.” Appeal Br. 19. “[N]one of Wiklund’s ‘operation commands and
parameters’ are taught or suggested to include a network address associated
with an application program, whereby such application program is further
executed (in a receiving device) in conjunction with the contents.” Appeal
Br. 20.
ii. “Kokernak’s network location of the packet generator is very
different than a network location of an application program.” Appeal Br. 21.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner,
which we adopt as our own. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness.
The Examiner finds Wiklund discloses “a trigger information
generating section configured to generate trigger information on control for
an application program which is executed in conjunction with the contents in
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
5
a receiving apparatus” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2 (citing Wiklund
¶ 83). We agree with and adopt this finding as our own.
Wiklund discloses “an automation system 108 provides triggering
information coupled to respective command information into the Private
Data Tables (PDT) and provides the PDTs to the multiplexer 107 that
multiplexes the digital data streams with the additional information.”
Wiklund ¶ 83. Wiklund further discloses “[t]riggering information ...
informs the local receiving means that a data stream should be modified
locally.” Wiklund ¶ 83. Thus, Wiklund discloses “a trigger information
generating section configured to generate trigger information” as recited in
claim 1. See Wiklund ¶ 83.
Regarding the trigger information being “on control for an application
program which is executed in conjunction with the contents in a receiving
apparatus” (claim 1), Wiklund further elaborates on the triggering
information, explaining “the demultiplexer 110 transmits the triggering
information coupled to said command information to a command processor
111.” Wiklund ¶ 86. Wiklund further elaborates on the triggering
information, further explaining “[i]n case the data stream consisting a
television program and the command is to change a commercial with an
application (e.g., a live video feed), the command processor 111 informs a
video server 113 to start providing e.g., the live video feed data stream to a
mixer 114.” Wiklund ¶ 87 (emphasis added). Thus, Wiklund discloses the
trigger information being “on control for an application program” (see
Wiklund ¶ 87 (“change a commercial with an application” (emphasis
added))) “which is executed in conjunction with the contents in a receiving
apparatus” (Wiklund’s application is executed in conjunction with
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
6
Wiklund’s television program. See Wiklund ¶ 87) as broadly recited in claim
1.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (i), Wiklund does disclose control
for an application program which is executed in conjunction with the
contents in a receiving apparatus. See Wiklund ¶ 87.
Further, regarding Appellant’s argument (i), the Examiner does not
rely on Wiklund for teaching claim 1’s “the trigger information including a
network address associated with the application program.” However, we find
Wiklund teaches this further recitation as well. See Wiklund ¶ 86 (“The
command processor 111 can control any system if the system can be located
by unique address. The address may be e.g., Internet Protocol (IP)
address.”).
This further finding based on Wiklund is not needed to reach our
decision because we also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
finding that Kokernak teaches claim 1’s “the trigger information including a
network address associated with the application program.” Final Act. 4
(citing Kokernak ¶ 20). Kokernak discloses “the set of tokens includes an
identifier carrying data representative of at least one of a network location of
the packet generator.” Kokernak ¶ 20; see also Kokernak Abstract (“The
packet generator generates packets within a stream of television content to
be broadcast over the television network.”). Contrary to Appellant’s
argument (ii), we do not agree that the network location of the packet
generator is different than a network location of an application program.
According to Kokernak, the packet generator generates television content.
See Kokernak Abstract. According to Wiklund, a live video feed (television
content) is an example of an application. Wiklund ¶ 87.
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
7
Finally, the Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the
teachings of Wiklund and Kokernak that is rational on its face and supported
by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 4 (citing Kokernak ¶ 8)
(“provide an improved platform for allowing data content on a computer
network to be linked with content on a broadcast network”). Appellant has
not presented any particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is
incorrect.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8, 13–15, 17,
18, and 20, 22, 24–29, and 31–36, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
Regarding claim 21, Appellant further argues “Kokernak’s tokens
only include an identifier carrying data representative of at least one of a
network location of a packet generator.” Appeal Br. 22. For reasons
explained above, we do not agree that the network location of the packet
generator is different than a network location of an application program. See
Kokernak Abstract; Wiklund ¶ 87.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Appellant further argues the cited prior art does
not teach “obtaining or acquiring of the application program” as recited in
claim 23. See Appeal Br. 22–23. As explained above, Wiklund further
elaborates on the triggering information, further explaining “[i]n case the
data stream consisting a television program and the command is to change a
commercial with an application (e.g., a live video feed), the command
processor 111 informs a video server 113 to start providing e.g., the live
video feed data stream to a mixer 114.” Wiklund ¶ 87 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
8
Thus, Wiklund teaches acquiring of the application program (e.g., a live
video feed). See Wiklund ¶ 87.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 30, Appellant further argues the cited prior art does
not teach “the network address associated with the application program
includes a network address of a server for obtaining or acquiring the
application program” as recited claim 30. See Appeal Br. 23. For reasons
explained above, Wiklund teaches acquiring of the application program
(e.g., a live video feed), while Kokernak teaches the network location
(address) of an application program. See Kokernak Abstract, Wiklund ¶ 87.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2 and 9 over Wiklund, Kokernak, and
Dakss
Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why
claims 2 and 9 are patentable beyond the arguments presented with respect
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 24.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 9 for
the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 10 over Wiklund, Kokernak, and
Lei
Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why
claims 3 and 10 are patentable beyond the arguments presented with respect
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 25.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 10 for
the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
9

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 11 over Wiklund, Kokernak, and
Leuratti
Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why
claims 4 and 11 are patentable beyond the arguments presented with respect
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 26–27.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 for
the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5 and 12 over Wiklund, Kokernak, and
Patel
Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why
claims 5 and 12 are patentable beyond the arguments presented with respect
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 27–28.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 12 for
the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s overall decision to reject claims 1–15, 17, 18, and
20–36 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–8, 13–
15, 17, 18,
20–36
103(a) Wiklund,
Kokernak
1, 6–8, 13–
15, 17, 18,
20–36

Appeal 2019-002102
Application 13/216,375
10
2, 9 103(a) Wiklund,
Kokernak, Dakss
2, 9
3, 10 103(a) Wikllund,
Kokernak, Lei
3, 10
4, 11 103(a) Wiklund,
Kokernak, Leuratti
4, 11
5, 12 103(a) Wiklund,
Kokernak, Patel
5, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 17,
18, 20–36

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED