Ex Parte Needham et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201613840342 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/840,342 03/15/2013 Michael L. Needham CS41108 9794 43471 7590 12/23/2016 ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C EXAMINER Legal Dept - Docketing 101 Tournament Drive HUANG, JEN-SHI HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): arris. docketing @ arris .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL L. NEEDHAM, KEVIN L. BAUM, FAISAL ISHTIAQ, RENXIANG LI, and SHIVAJIT MOHAPATRA Appeal 2016-004003 Application 13/840,342 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004003 Application 13/840,342 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to delivery of audio/video content to a subscriber’s primary device in parallel with delivery of information to the subscriber’s secondary device based on modeling the attention of the subscriber (see Spec. ]Hf 5—7). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computing device for controlling the delivery of data and audio/video content, comprising: a communication interface that connects the computing device to a network that connects to a subscriber device, and a companion device; a memory device resident in the computing device; and a processor disposed in communication with the communication interface and the memory device, the processor configured to: deliver primary content to the subscriber device for viewing by a subscriber; deliver secondary content to the companion device for viewing by the subscriber in parallel with the subscriber viewing the primary content, the secondary content relating to the primary content; extract at least one attention estimation feature from the primary content; monitor the companion device to determine an interaction measurement for the subscriber viewing the secondary content on the companion device; 2 Appeal 2016-004003 Application 13/840,342 calculate an attention measurement for the subscriber viewing the primary content based on said at least one attention estimation feature, and the interaction measurement; and control the delivery of the secondary content to the companion device based on the attention measurement. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Narasimhan et al. (“Narasimhan”) US 2013/0160036 A1 Jun. 20, 2013 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Narasimhan. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Narasimhan discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including “the processor configured to: .. . extract at least one attention estimation feature from the primary content” (Final Act. 4). Appellants contend Narasimhan fails to disclose this limitation because the data Narasimhan uses to determine the attention of a user is extrinsic to, and not extracted from, the content delivered to the user (see App. Br. 6—8). We agree with Appellants. Narasimhan discloses a system that: monitors a user’s activities to determine how much attention he is paying to one or more devices (e.g., a television and a companion device such as a smart phone, tablet computer, or game console). Based on the information gathered about the 3 Appeal 2016-004003 Application 13/840,342 user’s current “attention profile,” a “user-interaction parameter” is set that reflects where the user’s attention is focused and, ideally, how much of his attention is given to each device. Then, based on the user-interaction parameter, the user interface of at least one of the user’s devices is configured to optimize the user’s interactions, given the amount of attention he is currently giving to this user interface. (Narasimhan, | 6). However, we agree with Appellants’ argument (see App. Br. 6—8) that the Examiner has not shown Narasimhan’s user-interaction parameter can be based on a feature extracted from viewed content. Rather, Narasimhan describes gathering information for the user-interaction parameter based on a user’s activity, for example, “a number of keystrokes entered during the past minute,” whether “the user is actively interacting with an electronic program guide presented on the television monitor,” or input from “[a] camera on any of the end-user devices [that] may see the user’s eyes and note where he is looking” (Narasimhan, H 31, 33). Narasimhan also describes determining that a user is watching a movie where “[ojnline ratings show that the current scene is considered by many people to be very exciting,” and concluding that “the user’s attention is probably focused on the monitor” (Narasimhan, 133). However, online ratings are not extracted from the viewed content in Narasimhan, as in the claimed invention. The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument by citing to Narasimhan’s paragraph 44, which discloses “[i]f, for example, the user is primarily focusing on a football game displayed on the television monitor 114, then content relating to that game (e.g., advertisements, players’ biographies, a commentary track) could be displayed on the end-user device 108” (Ans. 4). Here, the Examiner finds Narasimhan’s “system needs to 4 Appeal 2016-004003 Application 13/840,342 know the identification/type of content first, in order to provide content- related information. Thus in the process, ID or features that can identity the content is being examined by the system, thereby meets the limitation of ‘extract attention estimation feature . . (id. ). However, Appellants successfully rebut this finding by asserting “Narasimhan’s system would most reasonably be able to identity a program being viewed using sources extrinsic to the content—such as program information from a set-top box as described at [0033]—in order to look up or locate sources of related content” (Reply Br. 3—4). Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown Narasimhan’s system necessarily extracts a feature from viewed content as claimed. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 21 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—10 and 12—20 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation