Ex Parte Braun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 7, 201310636507 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEFF BRAUN, ZANE VELLA, JOSEPH RICE, and OLE LUTJENS1 ____________________ Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and LARRY J. HUME, 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 25-42. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Hollinbeck Management GmbH, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a system for selecting video tracks during playback of a media production, i.e., to viewing of a media production of a live event and, more specifically, where the viewer may select from multiple available video tracks with a single button press without any displayed screen graphics to assist the user with the switch. Spec. ¶ [02] (“Background of the Invention”). Exemplary Claim Claim 25 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention, which we reproduce below (emphases added): 25. A method for preparing source files for creation of a DVD in a DVD authoring system, the method comprising: identifying video content for inclusion on the DVD, wherein the video content includes first and second tracks; creating an object file, wherein the object file includes first and second navigation packs, wherein the first navigation pack is accessed during playback of the first track and wherein the second navigation pack is accessed during playback of the second track, wherein the first navigation pack associates a first control button with the first track and a second control button 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Sep. 22, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 12, 2011); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 17, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Apr. 2, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 6, 2003). Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 3 with the second track, wherein the second navigation pack also associates the first control button with the first track and a second control button with the second track; accepting a signal from a user input device operated by an author using the authoring system to provide a single button switching function selectable by a user upon playback of the DVD in a DVD player; automatically modifying the navigation packs in the object file so that the first navigation pack associates a particular control button with the second track and so that the second navigation pack associates the particular control button with the first track; and subsequent to the above acts, transferring the video content and the modified object file for use in creating the DVD so that at a time of playing back the DVD the first and second tracks can be selected by the particular control button, wherein an audio track associated with the first track continuously is played while playback is switched from the first track to the second track. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Miwa US 5,923,627 Jul. 13, 1999 Brodersen U.S. 6,453,459 B1 Sep. 17, 2002 Rejection on Appeal3 Claims 25-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miwa and Brodersen. Ans. 4. 3 We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the written description rejection of claims 27 and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 4 ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br. 6-17; Reply Br. 2-15) that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miwa and Brodersen is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Miwa and Brodersen teaches or suggests a method for preparing source files for creation of a DVD in a DVD authoring system, “wherein the first navigation pack associates a first control button with the first track and a second control button with the second track, wherein the second navigation pack also associates the first control button with the first track and a second control button with the second track,” and wherein “the first navigation pack associates a particular control button with the second track and so that the second navigation pack associates the particular control button with the first track,” as recited in claim 25? ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 25-42, and we disagree with (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 by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 25 for emphasis as follows. Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 5 Appellants contend Miwa teaches a disc playback device including a channel register in which a channel register angle position number is incremented when the user presses an angle switching key. App. Br. 8 (citing Miwa col. 17:22 through col. 18:19; col. 36:35-50; and Fig. 24). Further, Appellants contend the angle cell corresponding to the incremented number is fetched by the playback device, instead of providing the recited navigation packs for first and second tracks wherein each navigation pack associates the same control with the other navigation pack’s track. Id. Thus, Appellants argue Miwa’s “navigation pack of angle 1 stored on a DVD would only store an association with controller button 1, and the navigation pack of angle 2 would only store an association with controller button 2.” App. Br. 8. In addition, Appellants contend Brodersen does not teach or suggest the recited “automatically modifying the navigation packs in the object file” (App. Br. 11-14) because “Brodersen discloses that an author can interactively remove, move or otherwise modify links in a conventional manner, and that program chains are not created until compilation and available connections are not fully resolved until playback,” and this teaching is not equivalent to the recited modification of navigation packs. App. Br. 12. In response to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner concludes: Miwa discloses an arrangement of video data such that video data for each angle are placed in each individual track called angle cell. Each of the angle cell has a navigation pack called management information pack as shown in Fig. 4. Each of such a navigation pack has, among other things, a PCI packet and a Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 6 DSI packet is further illustrated in Fig. 6D and Fig.8. The PCI part of the navigation pack has a structure shown in Fig. 9A, in which the associations by the navigation pack with a range of keys are defined. Ans. 10 (citing Miwa col. 18:5-16). The Examiner also concludes Miwa teaches associating one particular key to multiple angle cell or tracks, i.e., the angle switching key or key Angle 801, by which the tracks are cyclically changed or switched if the user presses the angle switching key. Ans. 12 (citing Miwa Fig. 18). Further, the Examiner equates Brodersen’s teaching of creating link data via a connection list and connection objects with Appellants’ recited navigation pack, i.e., navigation data. Ans. 13 (citing Brodersen Figs. 12, 13; col. 13:22-32, 57-61; col. 15:35 through col. 16:36). We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of the prior art combination, cited supra, particularly the characterization of Miwa with respect to providing a teaching or suggestion of the recitation “wherein the first navigation pack associates a first control button with the first track and a second control button with the second track, wherein the second navigation pack also associates the first control button with the first track and a second control button with the second track.” We disagree with the Examiner because we find Miwa’s teaching of merely incrementing a channel register angle position number when the user presses an angle switching key does not teach or suggest the details recited in the limitation in dispute. We further agree with Appellants and conclude that Brodersen’s teaching of source-target connections or link data (See Brodersen Fig. 12C, and Reply Br. 9) does not teach or suggest the modification of navigation Appeal 2011-005271 Application 10/636,507 7 packs in an object file, as claimed, because program chains are merely links, and not navigation packs, as Appellants define that term in their Specification. See Spec. ¶ [56] and Figs. 10 and 11. Accordingly, Appellants have provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 25. For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants cited, supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 26 and 27. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of all claims 28-42 that depend therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 25-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Miwa and Brodersen, and the rejection is not sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25-42 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation