Ex Parte Noetsele

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10383932 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/383,932 03/07/2003 Robert Van Noetsele 019A.0009.U1(US) 2094 29683 7590 10/31/2012 HARRINGTON & SMITH 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 ROBERT VAN NOETSELE ____________ Appeal 2011-006611 Application 10/383,9321 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention concerns a signal formatting apparatus for use in a television transmission system. The apparatus receives enhanced 1 The real party in interest is Chello Broadband NV. 2 Claim 13 has been cancelled. Appeal 2011-006611 Application 10/383,932 2 content streams in a predefined input format, and outputs enhanced content data in a plurality of formats for transmission to receivers of respective types (Spec. 3). A distribution unit is configured to distribute triggers at the times when it is desired for the interactive content to be played out (Spec. 8). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A television transmission system comprising: a signal formatter configured to receive an enhanced content stream in a predefined input format, and to process the enhanced content stream to put the enhanced content stream into a plurality of output formats that comprise at least a first output format, a second output format, and a third output format; and a distribution unit, wherein the signal formatter is configured to output to the distribution unit the enhanced content stream in the first output format, the second output format, and the third output format, wherein the distribution unit is configured to distribute the enhanced content stream in the first output format, the second output format, and the third output format to receivers of respective format types; and wherein the distribution unit is further configured to distribute to the receivers at least one trigger indicating to the receivers when to play out the enhanced content relative to a video stream. REFERENCES Rudraraju US 2002/0111876 A1 Aug. 15, 2002 Norstrom US 2002/0170067 A1 Nov. 14, 2002 Barone US 2003/0066081 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Norstrom in view of Barone. Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Norstrom in view of Barone and Rudraraju. Appeal 2011-006611 Application 10/383,932 3 ISSUE Appellant argues, inter alia, that the interactive television (ITV) data taught by Barone cannot be equated with both the “enhanced content” and the “triggers” recited in the claims (App. Br. 14-15). Appellant’s argument presents us with the following issue: Does the combination of Norstrom and Barone teach or fairly suggest a distribution unit configured to distribute to receivers at least one trigger indicating to the receivers when to play out enhanced content relative to a video stream? PRINCIPLES OF LAW Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”). Appeal 2011-006611 Application 10/383,932 4 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 9 both recite that the distribution unit distributes to the receivers at least one trigger indicating to the receivers when to play out the enhanced content. We consider the Examiner’s finding that Barone teaches this claim limitation (Ans. 4) to be erroneous. Barone teaches an encoder that embeds ITV data into a video program (¶ [0016]). Barone teaches that “[t]he ITV data may be triggers, HTTP, XML, JAVA, or JAVA SCRIPT commands, URLs, and/or other type of ITV links, triggers, data sources, timing information, and data conventional in the art” (id.). According to Barone, then, any triggers present are part of the ITV data. Barone thus fails to teach both enhanced content and one or more triggers indicating when to play the enhanced content, because the triggers of Barone are part of the enhanced content, not distinct from it. We find that the combination of Norstrom and Barone fails to teach all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 12. Further, we have reviewed Rudraraju and we find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of Norstrom and Barone. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11. CONCLUSION The combination of Norstrom and Barone does not teach or fairly suggest a distribution unit configured to distribute to receivers at least one trigger indicating to the receivers when to play out enhanced content relative to a video stream. Appeal 2011-006611 Application 10/383,932 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed. REVERSED babc