Ex Parte Frisco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

10428234 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

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.
10/428,234 05/02/2003 Jeffrey A. Frisco 59022 1190
7590 01/29/2013
CHRISTOPHER F. REGAN, ESQUIRE
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A.
P.O. Box 3791
Orlando, FL 32802-3791
EXAMINER
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2013 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 JEFFREY A. FRISCO, ROBERT M. KEEN,
and GLENN S. LATTA
_____________

Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 23-26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35
and 37-42. Br. 4. Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 30, 32, 34 and 36
are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to the field of aircraft systems, and more
particularly, to an aircraft system providing passenger entertainment and
aircraft surveillance. See Spec. 1:6-10.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:

1. A method for operating an aircraft in-flight entertainment (IFE)
system comprising at least one entertainment source, a plurality of
seat electronic boxes (SEBs) spaced throughout the aircraft, a signal
distribution network connecting the at least one entertainment source
to the plurality of SEBs, a plurality of passenger displays connected to
the plurality of SEBs, each SEB comprising at least one processor and
at least one non-removable memory connected thereto for storing
passenger profiles and selectively matched passenger advertisements,
with the at least one processor cooperating with the at least one
nonremovable memory, the method comprising:
collecting information on' aircraft passengers, with the collected
information being based upon at least one of frequent flyer profiles, an
airline passenger database, and an assigned passenger seating list;
generating the passenger profiles to be stored in the at least one
non-removable memory based upon the collected information;
selectively matching passenger advertisements to the passenger
profiles to generate the selectively matched passenger advertisements
to be stored in the at least one non-removable memory;
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

3
identifying a passenger before displaying the selectively
matched passenger advertisements based upon the assigned passenger
seating list; and
displaying on a respective passenger display the selectively
matched passenger advertisements.

REFERENCES
Murphy US 5,610,822 Mar. 1997
Sachdev US 5,966,442 Oct. 12, 1999
Fukui US 6,131,119 Oct. 10, 2000
Zigmond US 6,698,020 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
Conrad US 6,810,527 B1 Oct. 26, 2004
Tsuria WO 98/472249 Oct. 22, 1998

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, 28, 31, 33 and 37-41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, and
Zigmond. Ans. 4-14.
Claims 2, 3, 15, 16, 18, 23-25 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, and
Conrad. Ans. 14-16.
Claims 7 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, and Sachdev.
Ans. 16-17.
Claims 13 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, and Murphy.
Ans. 17-18.
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

4
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, Conrad, and Sachdev. Ans.
18-19.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, Conrad, and Murphy. Ans.
19-20.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in combining Fukui, Tsuria, and Zigmond
and finding that they collectively teach “collecting information on
aircraft passengers, with the collected information being based
upon at least one of frequent flyer profiles, an airline passenger
database, and an assigned passenger seating list” as recited in
claim 1;
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fukui,
Tsuria, and Zigmond teach “generating map images corresponding
to the selectively matched passenger advertisements on the
plurality of passenger displays” as recited in claim 13?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Fukui, Tsuria, and Zigmond
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-11
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Fukui, Tsuria,
and Zigmond because Zigmond “is directed to television viewing within a
household [which] is a completely different environment as compared to
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

5
providing selectively matched advertisements to aircraft passengers.” App.
Br. 13. Appellants essentially argue that Zigmond is not analogous art.
Specifically, Appellants argue that “Examiner has also erred in his
characterization of the terms household and home entertainment system in
Zigmond et al. to include aircraft inflight entertainment systems.” Id. This
argument is not persuasive.
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior
art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner notes that Zigmond defines a household to include
“house or any other site where video programming and advertisements are
displayed” and that Zigmond also defines a “home entertainment system” to
include “any television or other display screen and the associated hardware
and software for displaying the video programming and selected
advertisements” Ans. 20-21 (citing Zigmond, 6:29-47). Thus, we find ample
support for the Examiners finding that Zigmond is analogous art. Id. For
example, Zigmond is directed to providing targeted ads to a viewer of video
programming (See Zigmond, ABSTRACT) which is the same field of
endeavor to which the invention is directed (See Spec., 5:18-21). See Ans.
21.
Appellants also argue that “the ad insertion device 80 of Zigmond et
al. is rather complicated in its operation” and “[o]ne skilled in the art would
not look to the complicated ad insertion device, 80 as disclosed in Zigmond
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

6
et al. as a basis for modifying the smart card smart card 140 in Tsuria et al. .
. . .” Br. 15. Appellants essentially argue that one of skill in the art would
choose a less complex alternative. This question is not the right one,
however, as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained:
“Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive from a legal standpoint because it
again relies on the mistaken premise that the prior art must teach that a
particular combination is preferred, or ‘optimal,’ for the combination to be
obvious.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200, 73 F.3d 1141, 1145 (Fed. Cir.
2004). A teaching of alternatives is not a teaching away. Id.
Claim 1 recites “collecting information on aircraft passengers, with
the collected information being based upon at least one of frequent flyer
profiles, an airline passenger database, and an assigned passenger seating
list.” Appellants argue that “in Zigmond et al., the ad insertion device 90
simply stores viewer demographic data as provided to the ad insertion
device.” Br. 14. However, the Examiner relies on Tsuria to show this
limitation. Ans. 22. Therefore, Appellants have not responded to the
Examiner’s specific finding, thus this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants do not make substantive arguments regarding claims 1-3,
5, 7, 10 -12, 15 -16, 18, 20, 23-26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37-41 and thus
these claims fall with claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Fukui, Tsuria, Zigmond, and Murphy
Claims 13 and 42
Claim 13 recites “generating map images corresponding to the
selectively matched passenger advertisements on the plurality of passenger
displays.” Claim 42 contains essentially the same limitation. Appellants
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

7
argue “Murphy simply fails to make any reference to generating map images
corresponding to the selectively matched passenger advertisements. In fact,
Murphy fails to even mention maps or map images.” This argument is not
persuasive.
The Examiner relies on Zigmond and Murphy to show this limitation.
Zigmond teaches selecting ads based on the geographic location of the user
Zigmond, 10:24-64. Murphy teaches that a passenger is able to select images
of the scenery in the vicinity of the aircraft, e.g. views of the Rocky
Mountains, Great Salt Lake, etc. Murphy, 5:21- 6:23. Murphy further
teaches a user is able to “select a prerecorded pictorial tour of the National
Park.” Murphy, 4:1-35. A map can be broadly defined as “a diagrammatic
representation of the earth's surface or part of it, showing the geographical
distributions, positions, etc., of natural or artificial features such as roads,
towns, relief, rainfall, etc.” The Collins English Dictionary, © HarperCollins
Publishers (2000) (retrieved from
http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/hcengdict/map) (last visited Jan. 23, 2013).
Given that definition we find ample support for the Examiner’s finding that
Murphy’s representation of geographical features such as mountains and
lakes meets the definition of a map. Ans. 23-24. Therefore, we find that the
combination of Zigmond and Murphy teach “generating map images
corresponding to the selectively matched passenger advertisements on the
plurality of passenger displays.”
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, 15-16, 18,
20, 23-26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37-42 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-009621
Application 10/428,234

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD