Ex Parte SPECTOR

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

13568250 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/568,250 08/07/2012
25889 7590 04/26/2016
COLLARD & ROE, P,C
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DONALD SPECTOR
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.
SPECTOR - 12 CIP 1021
EXAMINER
FLETCHER, JERRY-DARYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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 DONALD SPECTOR
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donald Spector ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4---6 in this
application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Appellant as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and it recites:
1. A method for providing education comprising the
following steps:
selecting a subject as the basis of an education program;
compiling facts within the subject for inclusion in the
education program;
editing an existing entertainment program to include the
facts within the subject;
preparing test questions related to the subject;
recording the edited entertainment program and storing the
edited entertainment program and test questions on a server
having a communication system for connection to the internet
and a microprocessor;
accessing the edited entertainment program via a personal
computer and playing the program;
creating supplementary materials containing the facts,
and automatically providing said supplementary materials to the
participants in an electronic file during said step of accessing;
automatically pausing the program via the microprocessor
at designated intervals and displaying the test questions via the
microprocessor;
automatically restarting the program via the
microprocessor when correct answers to the test questions are
input into the personal computer;
automatically replaying the program via the
microprocessor from a designated time in the program when
incorrect answers are input into the personal computer.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Packard (US 7,210,938 B2, iss. May 1, 2007),
Braunberger (US 2003/0077559 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2003), Harrison
2
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
(US 5,961,333, iss. Oct. 5, 1999), and Cynaumon (US 2001/0031456 Al,
pub. Oct. 18, 2001). Ans. 2--4.2
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Packard, Braunberger, Harrison, Cynaumon, and Reynolds
(US 2002/0146676 Al, pub. Oct. 10, 2002). Ans. 5.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Packard, Braunberger, Harrison, Cynaumon, and Richter
(US 2001/0036622 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2001). Ans. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness based on Packard, Braunberger, Harrison, and
Cynaumon (claims 1, 2, and 6)
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Packard discloses, as
recited in claim 1, editing an existing entertainment program to include the
facts within a selected subject as the basis of an education program. Appeal
Br. 5. 1A..ppellant contends Packard "deal[s] \vith creating an educational
program, not modifying an existing entertainment program to be
educational." Id. Appellant contends Packard, at column 29, lines 41---67,
"only refers to the type of activity being done during the lesson," and does
not disclose taking an existing entertainment program and editing it for
2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 6 as
unpatentable over Packard, Braunberger, and Harrison, and rejected claim 3
(which depended from claim 1) as unpatentable over Packard, Braunberger,
Harrison, and Cynaumon. Final Act. 2-5. The Examiner thereafter entered
Appellant's after-final amendment, which amended claim 1 to include the
subject matter of claim 3, and canceled claim 3. Adv. Act. 1-2. The
Examiner correspondingly entered new grounds of rejection in the Answer.
Ans. 2---6.
3
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
educational purposes. Reply Br. 1-2. This alleged difference between
Packard and claim 1 is significant, in Appellant's view, because the original
programming of Packard is "not as attractive to consumers, who are looking
for a real entertainment experience, with the education as an added bonus."
Id. at 2.
The Examiner pertinently finds Packard discloses "editing an existing
entertainment program that includes the facts within the subject" as the basis
of an education program. Ans. 2-3 (citing Packard, 29:41-67). The
Examiner notes "Packard teaches that media objects are stored in the system
and that the content objects can be used with a plurality of templates without
having to be recreated." Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted, citing Packard, 3 6: 51-
37: 32). The Examiner further finds "the educational program of Packard
exists as activities where the activities templates are used for teaching,
practice and challenge sections" (citing Packard, 29:40-45), and Packard's
"activities are disclosed to include external sources" (citing Packard, 33: 1-
3). Ans. 6.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding Packard discloses
editing an existing entertainment program to include facts within a selected
subject of an education program, as recited in claim 1. Packard discloses
users may "browse and select media elements for inclusion in the building of
content objects" in Packard's educational system. Packard, 36:51-54, 26:9-
17, 26:51-27:4. The media elements are either "raw" media objects
"acquired[] for use in the system," or "processed" media objects "derived
from" raw media objects and "prepared for deployment in" Packard's
educational system. Id. at 36:54--61. Further, the processed media objects
are "linkable to" other content objects 2508 in Packard's educational system,
4
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
for example using an activities template 2606 "for teaching, practice, and
challenge sections." Id. at 36:64---67, 26:51-56, 29:41---67. These various
disclosures support, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner's
finding that Packard discloses editing an existing entertainment program
(i.e., raw media objects 1706) to include facts within a selected subject of an
education program.
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding Cynaumon
discloses, as recited in claim 1, creating supplementary materials containing
the facts, and automatically providing the supplementary materials to the
participants in an electronic file during the accessing of an educational
program. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, Cynaumon "only generally
mentions the use of a corrective curriculum." Id.
The Examiner pertinently finds Cynaumon discloses "the automatic
presentation of supplemental educational context to a student." Ans. 4
(citing Cynaumon i-fi-f 10, 68). The Examiner interprets Cynaumon's use of
performance yardsticks to provide students with supplemental, corrective
curriculum, such as homework exercises, as an automatic step that occurs
each time the student fails to meet the performance yardstick. Ans. 7. The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to have modified
Packard's system "to provide supplementary information, as is taught by
Cynaumon, to aid students who had problems passing the assessment." Id.
at 4. The Examiner additionally states:
[T]he automation of a manual process is obvious to one
possessing ordinary skill in the art, thus even if the provision of
the supplemental, corrective curriculum is interpreted to be
manual, since the teacher is active, the automation of that process
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Id. at 7.
5
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding Cynaumon
discloses creating supplementary materials and automatically providing
those materials to participants in an electronic file. The fact that
Cynaumon' s supplementary materials are a "corrective curriculum" does not
make them any less supplementary. Moreover, the Examiner relies on
paragraph 68 of Cynaumon, disclosing educational content may be presented
on a student home page 205 "from the lessons and exercises manager 21 O"
of Figure 2. Cynaumon i-f 68, Fig. 2. "[T]he educational content may
include additional or homework exercises surrounding the student's studies,"
for example "corrective curriculum" selected by a teacher. Id. i-fi-1 68, 10.
These various disclosures support, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
Examiner's finding that Cynaumon discloses creating supplementary
materials and automatically providing those materials to participants, via
manager 210.
Moreover, Appellant entirely fails to address the Examiner's
alternative basis for obviousness in this regard, based upon the automation
of a manual process, if Cynaumon is found to disclose providing
supplementary materials manually rather than automatically. Ans. 7.
Appellant has, therefore, waived any rebuttal of this alternative basis.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Packard, Braunberger, Harrison, and Cynaumon.
Appellant does not present any additional arguments for the patentability of
claims 2 and 6. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of those claims.
6
Appeal2014-002720
Application 13/568,250
B. Other Obviousness Rejections
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments for the
patentability of claims 4 and 5 separately from their common parent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Therefore, for the reasons provided above in
connection with claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable
over Packard, Braunberger, Harrison, Cynaumon, and Reynolds, and the
rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Packard, Braunberger, Harrison,
Cynaumon, and Richter.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4---6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7