Ex Parte Boylan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 201311442670 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation