Ex Parte Boylan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2013

11442670 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER C. BOYLAN III, WILLIAM L. THOMAS,
JOEL G. HASSELL, and MICHAEL D. ELLIS
____________

Appeal 2010-010494
Application 11/442,670
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010494
Application 11/442,670

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 47-49, 51, 53-57, 59, 61, and 62. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to interactive television program
guides, and more particularly, to techniques for providing local advertising
with such interactive television program guides. (See generally Abstract;
Spec. 4-7.)
Claim 47 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
47. A system in which advertisements are distributed to
user television equipment on which an interactive television
program guide is implemented, comprising:
means for distributing the advertisements to the user
television equipment;
means for selecting blocking criteria;
means for blocking advertisements based on the blocking
criteria; and
means for displaying advertisements which are not
blocked on the user television equipment with the interactive
television program guide.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 47-49, 51, 53-57, 59, 61, and 62 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Alexander (US 6,177,931 B1; Jan. 23,
2001; filed July 21, 1998). (Ans. 3-8.)1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
Mar. 26, 2010; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Apr. 28, 2010; and
(3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed June 28, 2010.
Appeal 2010-010494
Application 11/442,670

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Alexander discloses each recited feature of
illustrative claim 47. (Ans. 3-6.) Appellants, however, argue that Alexander
does not disclose any techniques for blocking advertisements using blocking
criteria. (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-4.)

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Alexander
discloses a means for selecting blocking criteria and a means for blocking
advertisements based on the blocking criteria, as recited by claim 47?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the anticipation
rejection of claim 47. Appellants argue that Alexander fails to disclose a
means for selecting blocking criteria and a means for blocking
advertisements based on the selected criteria. (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3.)
We disagree.
Alexander discloses a parental control function that allows a parent,
through an identifier or tag, to select the channels and programs that can be
visible for a particular viewer and to select channels and/or programs that
are to be blocked from the viewer. (Ans. 5, 10 (citing Alexander col. 17, ll.
26-47).) Appellants maintain that Alexander’s parental control function
“do[es] not address advertisements at all” and does “not disclose any
blocking criteria for use with advertisements.” (Reply Br. 3.) In other
words, Appellants argue that Alexander’s channels and/or programs are not
advertisements. This distinction, however, is without merit. Channels
Appeal 2010-010494
Application 11/442,670

4
and/or programs include advertisement channels and advertisement
programs, such as for example, infomercials. (Ans. 5, 10.) Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Alexander discloses a means for selecting
blocking criteria and a means for blocking advertisements based on the
blocking criteria, as recited by claim 47.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 47; independent claim
55 which recites commensurate limitations; and dependent claims 48, 49, 51,
53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, and 62 not separately argued with particularity.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 47-49, 51, 53-57, 59, 61,
and 62 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

babc