Ex Parte Holtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

10200776 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEX HOLTZ, DAVID E. BUEHNEMANN, GILBERTO FRES,
HARRISON T. HICKENLOOPER III, CHARLES M. HOEPPNER,
KEVIN K. MORROW, BRADLEY E. NEIDER, LOREN J. NORDIN III,
TODD D. PARKER, and ROBERT J. SNYDER
____________

Appeal 2010-009111
Application 10/200,7761
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is THOMSON LICENSING S.A.
Appeal 2010-009111
Application 10/200,776

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 105-107, 109-111, 113-115, 117-119, 121-
140, 142-161, and 163-178, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. Claims 1-104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 141, and 162 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to automating the execution of
a live or live-to-tape video show. See Spec. 1:6-7.
Claim 105 is illustrative:
105. A teleprompting system, comprising:
means for creating a teleprompting script;
command insertion means for inserting a teleprompter
command into said teleprompting script;
scrolling means for scrolling said teleprompting script
across a teleprompting display screen;
executing means for executing said teleprompter
command during the scrolling of said teleprompting script on said
teleprompting display screen when said command reaches a
predetermined position on said teleprompting display screen;
means for creating a list of two or more teleprompting
scripts; and
means for successively scrolling each script in said list
across said display screen.

Appeal 2010-009111
Application 10/200,776

3

Appellants appeal the following rejection:

Claims 105-107, 109-111, 113-115, 117-119, 121-140, 142-161, and
163-178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Miller (US 5,801,685, Sep. 1, 1998).

ANALYSIS
Claims 105-107, 109-111, 113-115,
117-119, 121-140, 142-161, and 163-178
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Miller teaches and/or
suggests “creating a list of two or more teleprompting scripts . . .
successively scrolling each script in said list across said display screen,” as
claimed?

Appellants contend that “Miller fails to teach or suggest the creation
of a list comprised of two or more scripts, or any list at all for that matter.”
(App. Br. 16.) Appellants further contend that “[n]ot a single passage in
Miller explains that multiple scripts contained in a list can be successively
scrolled.” (Id. at 17.)
The Examiner found that “it is implicitly included in Miller that a
new[s] broadcast comprises a plurality of new stories, each stor[y]
associate[s] with a textual story or script. In addition, Miller teaches
combining of multiple created scripts to generate a broadcast program.”
(Ans. 8-9.) We agree with the Examiner.

Appeal 2010-009111
Application 10/200,776

4
In essence, the Examiner found that Miller implicitly discloses
creating a list of two or more teleprompter scripts merely by creating an
entire broadcast program. We agree. For example, Miller discloses that “it
will also be desirable to combine multiple edited video and textual stories
into a complete news broadcast performance, by combining several
performances created . . . and then playing back the stories in a desired
order.” (Col. 10, ll. 9-15.) In other words, Miller takes multiple textual
stories (i.e., two or more teleprompting scripts) and plays them back in a
desired order on a display screen. We find that the claimed “creating a list
of two or more teleprompting scripts” reads on Miller’s complete news
broadcast performance which includes multiple scripts being played back in
a desired order.
The recited “two or more teleprompting scripts” is strikingly similar
(at least conceptually) to Miller’s teachings noted above, and the Examiner’s
reliance on this functionality is therefore persuasive.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of Miller, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 105, as well as claims 106, 107, 109-111,
113-115, 117-119, 121-140, 142-161, and 163-178 not separately argued by
Appellants, is sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
Appeal 2010-009111
Application 10/200,776

5
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

peb