Ex Parte Chou et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 28, 2016

11773942 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111773,942 0710512007 Hung-Te Chou 27765 7590 05/02/2016 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION P.O. BOX506 MERRIFIELD, VA 22116 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. PCLP0021USA 2268 EXAMINER MESA,JOSEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUNG-TE CHOU, CHUN-MING SU, HUNG-TE LIN, YUNG- CHAO TSENG, CHIH-CHUNG CHANG, KUANG-CHE WU, MENG-JYI SHIEH and KUO-HSIN YANG Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14--25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Illustrative Claim Claim 1. A method for activating video-audio data in an optical disc, the method comprising: determining whether a first activation signal is received or not, wherein the first activation signal is provided by an information platform connected through a network and the first activation signal is an identification code; a program in the optical disc allowing access to a first featured content of the video-audio data when the first activation signal is not received; and the program in the optical disc allowing access to a second featured content of the video-audio data when the first activation signal is received, wherein the program in the optical disc allows access according to a case selected from the group consisting of: the program in the optical disc allowing access to the first featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to partial contents of the video-audio data, and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the second featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to full contents of the video-audio data; the program in the optical disc allowing access to the first featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to a first partially-featured content of the video-audio data, and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the second featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to a second partially-featured content of the video-audio data; 2 Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 the program in the optical disc allowing access to the first featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to a first partially-featured content of the video-audio data, and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the second featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to a second partially-featured content of the video-audio data within a predetermined period; the program in the optical disc allowing access to the first featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing access to full contents of the video-audio data within a first predetermined period, and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the second featured content of the video- audio data comprises allowing access to the full contents of the video-audio data within a second predetermined period; and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the first featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing playing full contents of the video-audio data according to a first display standard, and the program in the optical disc allowing access to the second featured content of the video-audio data comprises allowing playing the full contents of the video-audio data according to a second display standard. T sumagari Jung Prior Art US 2003/06161615 Al Aug. 28, 2003 US 2006/0280048 Al Dec. 14, 2006 Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung and Tsumagari. 3 Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the response by the Examiner to Appellants' contentions raised in the Appeal Brief for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. In the Reply Brief, Appellants make several contentions that are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. For example, Appellants contend the claimed identification code is similar to a password and is used for unlocking contents. Reply Br. 4--5. However, claim 1 does not recite using an identification code for unlocking contents. Further, Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition of "identification code" that excludes an identification for an actor as taught by Jung. Appellants also contend the claimed contents and the identification code are stored separately. Reply Br. 5---6. However, Claim 1 only recites an activation signal is an identification code that is either received or not. Claim 1 does not recite storing the identification code. Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition of "determining whether a first activation signal is received or not" that excludes determining whether a user's selection of an actor is received as taught by Jung. Appellants contend the verb "activating" is not the same as the verb "searching." Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants also contend Jung does not make anything active. Reply Br. 8-9. Claim 1 does not recite the verb "activating," nor recite making anything active. Rather, claim 1 recites a "first activation signal" that "is an identification code" and allows access to certain data when received. 4 Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 Appellants contend Jung does not grant or deny access to data according to whether the activation signal is received. Reply Br. 9-11. However, claim 1 recites "allowing access," not granting or denying access. Appellants' contentions are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants contend the descriptors of Jung do not teach the claimed "activation signal" that allows access to first content when not received, and allows access to second content when received. Reply Br. 11-13. The Examiner finds receiving a user's selection of an actor, or ''first activation signal," allows "access to a second featured content" for the actor, while receiving a selection for an actress when a selection for the actor is not received, allows "access to a first featured content" for the actress "when the first activation signal" for the actor "is not received" within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 29-30. Appellants contend the selection of an actress is more analogous to the claimed "second feature content" and has nothing to do with the claimed "first feature content." Reply Br. 13. Appellants' contention is unsupported by persuasive evidence or argument. We agree with the Examiner that the selection of an actor teaches a "first activation signal" within the meaning of claim 1. We also agree that the scope of "allowing access to a first featured content" when the "first activation signal is not received" encompasses allowing access to content for an actress when the user's selection of an actor is not received, but the user's selection of an actress is received, as taught by Jung. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14--25, which fall with claim 1. 5 Appeal2014-007190 Application 11/773,942 DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14--25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6