Ex Parte Braun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2013

10636507 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2013)

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