Ex Parte AMINDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 201713194968 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017) 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. 13/194,968 07/31/2011 Umesh AMIN 1129.0002 1046 94165 7590 09/19/2017 T enrmrHPatel PP EXAMINER 9891 Irvine Center Drive PENG, HSIUNGFEI Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2017 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): patents @ leonardpatel.com spatel@leonardpatel.com mleonard@leonardpatel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte UMESH AMIN Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1—21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates that “[cjlaims 1—9, 11—14, and 16—21 are the subject of this appeal.” App. Br. 5. However, under our procedural rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c), an appeal is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by Applicant and entered by the Office. Accordingly, although not argued by Appellant, claims 10 and 15 are before us on appeal. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellant's disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to systems and methods for storing and rendering user preference based media content of a mixed rated media in a secure, efficient, cost effective, and family friendly viewing manner. Spec. 12. Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis and/or labeling added to contested limitations): 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a computing device, at least one user preference of desired media content of mixed rated media; [LI] editing out, by the computing device, frames comprising undesired media content of the mixed rated media, wherein each of a plurality of frames comprises an associated rating tag; [L2] checking each frame, by the computing device, to determine a rating from the associated rating tag of the respective frame; and rendering, by the computing device, the desired media content according to the received at least one user preference without the edited out frames. 5. A computer-implemented method, comprising: reviewing, by a computing device, mixed rated media; 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed March 15, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 4, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 31, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed July 31, 2011). 2 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 checking, by the computing device, a rating of media content; checking, by the computing device, a change preference to allow a broader audience when the rating of the media content is higher than a received user preference; editing out, by the computing device, frames comprising undesired media content of the mixed rated media, wherein at least one frame comprises a rating tag; and rendering, by the computing device, the media content when the media content rating is aligned with the received user preference without the edited out frames. 21. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, a request from the user to display a rationale for a given rating of the mixed rated media; and displaying to a user, by the computing device, the rationale for the mixed rated media to the user and the mixed rated media with the given rating so the user can decide whether the mixed rated media is acceptable. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Abecassis US 2001/0041053 A1 Nov. 15, 2001 Hiler US 2007 /0256093 A1 Nov. 1, 2007 Dhawan et al. ("Dhawan") US 8,079,054 B1 Dec. 13, 2011 3 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 Rejections on Appeal Rl. Claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Abecassis. Ans. 2. R2. Claims 1—4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abecassis and Dhawan. Ans. 8. R3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abecassis and Hiler. Ans. 10. R4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abecassis and Dhawan. Ans. 11. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 14—20), we decide the appeal of anticipation rejection Rl of claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20 on the basis of representative claim 5. Further, based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 20—27), we decide the appeal of obviousness rejection R2 of claims 1—4 on the basis of representative claim 1. We address rejection R2 of separately argued claim 21, infra. App. Br. 27—30. We address remaining claims 10 and 15 in rejections R3 and R4, not argued separately, infra. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to all contested claims and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,5, and 21 for emphasis as follows. 1. $ 102(b) Rejection R1 of Claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20 Issue 1 Appellant argues (App. Br. 14—20) the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Abecassis is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Abecassis expressly or inherently discloses "[a] computer-implemented method" that includes, inter alia, the step of "checking, by the computing device, a change preference to allow a broader audience when the rating of the media content is higher than a received user preference," as recited in claim 5? Analysis Appellant contends: Abecassis does not check whether a broader audience is permitted when a content rating is higher than a received user preference. Instead, Abecassis merely checks whether the general ratings accepted by a user have changed. . . . The user is never asked anything about a change preference for specific content. 5 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 App. Br. 15—16. Appellant specifically contends "Abecassis is completely silent as to checking a change preference . . . App. Br. 19—20. We agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 13—14) that Abecassis discloses the contested limitation. In particular, we agree with the Examiner's unrebutted factual findings and legal conclusions, which we incorporate herein and adopt as our own, including that, given the disclosure of Abecassis, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it is inherent to check a change preference before children are able to watch a video with a higher rating than the originally set preference rating. Ans. 13. We note Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to disclose the contested limitation of claim 5, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 5, and grouped claims 6—9, 11—14, and 16—20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. $103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1—4 Issue 2 Appellant argues (App. Br. 21—27) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Abecassis and Dhawan is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: 6 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, steps LI and L2, as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellant contends Dhawan's teachings "differs from independent claim 1, which pertains to editing out undesired video content based on the rating in each frame. Dhawan et al. is merely assigning what users felt to each frame." App. Br. 25. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because Appellant attacks the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner cites Abecassis, not Dhawan, for teaching or suggesting the "editing" limitation LI. Final Act. 9. We agree with the Examiner's unrebutted finding (Ans. 14—18) that the combination of Abecassis and Dhawan teaches or suggests contested limitations LI and L2. In particular, we agree with the Examiner's detailed factual findings and legal conclusions, set forth on pages 14 through 18 of the Answer, which we incorporate herein and adopt as our own. We again note Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the contested 7 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2-4, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 3. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 21 Issue 3 Appellant argues (App. Br. 27—30) the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Abecassis and Dhawan is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests "[t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1," that further includes, inter alia, the step of "receiving ... a request from the user to display a rationale for a given rating," as recited in claim 21? Analysis Regarding dependent claim 21, Appellant separately argues Abecassis does not teach "receiving ... a request from the user to display a rationale for a given rating." App. Br. 28. Appellant argues "[tjhere is no such request for a rationale for a rating from a user anywhere in Abecassis." Id. The Examiner finds, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, that a request to display a rationale for a given rating reads on Abecassis' request to display any information related to a given rating. Ans. 18. The Examiner alternatively finds Abecassis' performance of a keyword search and displaying a particular subject matter for a given rating by a user can be reasonably interpreted as a rationale for a given rating. Id. As noted above, 8 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Therefore, on this record we are not persuaded the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellant's Specification.3 Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 21. 4. $103 Rejections R3 and R4 of Claims 10 and 15 In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to obviousness Rejections R3 and R4 under § 103 of claims 10 and 15, respectively (see App. Br. 10 et seq.), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Arguments not made are waived. See n.l, supra. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection R1 of claims 5—9, 11—14 and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection. (2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 1—4, 10, 15, 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. 3 Any special meaning assigned to a term or phrase "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). 9 Appeal 2017-005699 Application 13/194,968 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—21. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation