Ex Parte Van Noetsele

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

10383937 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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. 10/383,937 03/07/2003 Robert Van Noetsele 019A.0005.U1(US) 2122 29683 7590 09/26/2012 HARRINGTON & SMITH 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 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 2011-006634 Application 10/383,937 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-006634 Application 10/383,937 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to controlling the transmission of messages in an interactive television system (Spec. 1:3-4). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A method for controlling transmission of messages in an interactive television system comprising a network and a plurality of receiver units connected to the network; the method comprising: transmitting to the receiver units an invitation message inviting a response from each receiver unit and indicating that a delay procedure is to be applied to the responses; and at each receiver unit: accepting from a user of the receiver unit data in response to the invitation message; forming a response message for transmission to the network in response to the invitation message, the response message including the data received from the user; determining the length of a delay interval to be applied to the response message; and transmitting the response message to the network after the delay, wherein the length of the delay interval is based on at least one identity held by the receiver unit, and wherein the at least one identity of the receiver unit includes information relating to the geographical position of the receiver unit. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rooney (European Patent Application Publication No. 1176828 A2, published January 30, 2002) and Appeal 2011-006634 Application 10/383,937 3 Jost (US Patent No. 7,251,820 Bl, issued July 31, 2007, filed November 15, 1999). The Examiner rejected claims 4-6 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rooney, Jost, and Yoshinobu (US Patent No. 5,684,526, November 4, 1997). The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 10, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rooney, Jost, and Scheidt (US Patent No. 2005/0235148 Al, issued October 20, 2005, effectively filed Jan. 30, 2003). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Rooney discloses all the elements of Appellant’s claimed invention except for disclosing at least one identity of a receiver unit includes information relating to a geographical position of the receiver unit. The Examiner then finds Jost discloses this feature. (Ans. 3-4) Appellant contends Jost does not disclose delaying a response to an invitation message (polling) by a set-top box; rather, Jost discloses selecting which set-top box to send the messages (the polling) to prevent collisions (App. Br. 16). Additionally, in Jost, a controller “determines and stores the ‘location information’ before using it to determine when to poll the set-top box,” the controller being external to the set-top box. In contrast, in Appellant’s claims, the set-top box stores the location information used to determine the delay interval. (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6). We agree. Thus, we find the combination of Rooney and Jost does not result in Appellant’s claimed invention. The remaining references do not cure Jost’s deficiencies. Appeal 2011-006634 Application 10/383,937 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 is reversed. REVERSED tkl