Ex Parte MIN

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

12467334 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/467,334 05/18/2009 89980 7590 03/30/2016 NSIPLAW P.O. Box 65745 Washington, DC 20035 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wook-hee MIN 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. 012053.0087 7844 EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): pto@nsiplaw.com pto.nsip@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOOK-HEE MIN Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467 ,334 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-22. (Appeal Br. 2.) Claim 15 is cancelled. (Appeal Br. 28.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b)(l). We affirm. Invention Appellant's invention relates to an interactive content reproduction apparatus, where the apparatus selects unit contents of specific levels from 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467,334 among interactive content according to user information and reproduces a user-adaptive story using the selected unit contents. (Abstract.) Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. An interactive content reproduction apparatus compnsmg: a first storage configured to store user information; a second storage configured to store non-linear interactive content including a plurality of level-specific unit contents and story map information; a controller configured to select unit contents of respective levels from among the interactive content stored in the second storage according to the user information stored in the first storage, and to reproduce a user-adaptive story in which the selected level-specific unit contents are connected; and an interrupt processor configured to interrupt reproduction of the user-adaptive story reproduced by the controller, when a user interrupt or a system interrupt occurs, and to reproduce specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1-14 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Picco (US 2005/0166224 Al; July 28, 2005) Shiels et al. (US 6,260, 194 B 1; July 10, 2001) ("Shiels") and Poslinski et al (US 7,774,811 B2; Aug. 10, 2010) ("Poslinski"). (Final Action 2-9.) 2 Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467,334 Issues Did the Examiner err in construing the claim limitation of "an interrupt processor configured ... to reproduce specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt," as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Picco, Shiels, and Poslinski, and specifically Poslinski's progress bar, teaches or suggests "specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim Construction Appellant contends that the combination of Picco, Shiels, and Poslinski fails to teach or suggest the interrupt processor as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 3---6.) Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred in claim interpretation of the limitation that the interrupt processor be configured "to reproduce specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt" in making findings relating to the reproduction of "specific unit contents" but not making findings relating to specific unit contents being "built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt." In particular, Appellant states the following: [T]he Advisory Action appears to have overlooked all the features associated with the reproduction of the specific unit contents. As correctly indicated in the Final Office Action, 3 Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467,334 independent claim 1 recites "specific unit contents or story built." However, such alternative condition does not justify excluding the remaining recitations. In particular, independent claim 1 clearly recites that the interrupt processor is configured to reproduce specific unit contents "by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt." (Appeal Br. 13-14.) We do not agree with Appellant. We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation encompasses the interrupt processor reproducing at least one of "specific unit contents" or "a story built by connecting the unit contents." The claim recitations do not require the "specific unit contents" to be built by connecting unit contents. This interpretation is supported by the Appellant's Specification, which describes how "[a]fter reproducing the specific unit contents or the story built by connecting them, the interrupt processor 180 resumes or terminates the interrupted story." (Spec. 14.) Because the claim on its face distinguishes between a reproduction of specific unit contents and reproduction of a story composed of specific unit contents, Appellant's reading would remove any distinction between these two possibilities presented disjunctively in both the claim and in the Specification. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, with respect to this claim limitation, the combination of the prior art need only teach or suggest "specific unit contents" in order to support a finding of unpatentability. "specific unit contents or a story built by connecting the unit contents, which are planned according to the user interrupt or the system interrupt" We next address Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in finding the specific unit contents of the disputed limitation are taught or suggested by the progress bars in Poslinski. (Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 4.) 4 Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467,334 Appellant argues that specific unit content cannot be a progress bar showing the progression of a program. (Appeal Br. 13.) However, the Specification contains an express definition that, "[t]he term 'unit content' refers to a unit of content constituting interactive content." (Spec. 7.) This broad definition is met by the program bar, which displays information in the form of how much of a program has been viewed and how much remains to be viewed. (Poslinski 17:7-13.) Additionally, Poslinski's progress bars are interactive, for example providing the user, as Appellant acknowledges, a way of "switching the focus to other playback (and/or record) applications by shifting the focus/highlighting 2150 to other progress bars." (Appeal Br. 14, citing Poslinski 18:21---67.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Poslinski' s progress bars, as interactive content, teach or suggest "specific unit contents." (Answer 2-3; Final Action 2--4.) We additionally agree with the Examiner's finding that the progress bars are "planned according to the user interrupt" because the bars show where the program has been paused according to the user interrupt activation of the pause function (the user interrupt). (Final Action 4.) Appellant additionally argues that no motivation to combine the references supported by evidence is provided. The evidence supporting the combination in an obviousness determination may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Examiner provides a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination (Final Act. 3--4), and no persuasive argument has been made by Appellant countering this finding by the Examiner. 5 Appeal2014-005314 Application 12/467,334 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and of claim 17, argued on similar grounds. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-14, 16, and 18-22 not separately argued with specificity. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 16-22. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. AFFIRMED 6