Ex Parte Sievert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

12494539 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/494,539 06/30/2009
58127 7590 12/21/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Sievert
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.
RPS9200900 l 8USNP(7 l 0.117) 1292
EXAMINER
FOGG, CYNTHIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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 MICHAEL SIEVERT, ROBERT D. DICKINSON III,
and BLAKE C. RAMSDELL
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 18-20, and 26, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 21-25 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE. LTD (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to displaying media
content selected from a user device on a combined display (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
a program storage device embodying a program of
instructions executed by the one or more processors to:
receive displayable video data at the apparatus;
display the displayable video data on a main display;
obtain related displayable media content;
provide, on the main display, an indication of the related
displayable media content;
communicate, from the apparatus to one or more
connected user devices data for displaying, on a display of the
one or more connected user devices, a selection option for
viewing the related displayable media content on the display of
one or more connected user devices;
receive, from the one or more connected user devices, one
or more selections of the related displayable media content;
use the one or more selections of the related displayable
media content from the one or more connected user devices to
provide a combined display of the related displayable media
content and the displayable video data on the main display;
receive, from the one or more connected user devices, a
request for displaying independently derived media content; and
display the independently derived media content located
on the main display with the combined display of the related
displayable media content and the displayable video data.
2
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Herigstad
Konig
Leinonen
Covell
Mullig
McIntire
Matsubara
Afram
US 2002/0100063 Al
US 2004/0237102 Al
US 2005/0264704 Al
US 2007/0130580 Al
US 2007/0143493 Al
US 2007/0250901 Al
US 2009/0081950 Al
US 2009/0307721 Al
REJECTIONS
July 25, 2002
Nov. 25, 2004
Dec. 1, 2005
June 7, 2007
June 21, 2007
Oct. 25, 2007
Mar. 26, 2009
Dec. 10, 2009
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and
Mullig (Final Act. 4--15).
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and Leinonen (id.
at 15-17).
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and Konig (id. at
17-18).
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and Covell (id. at
19-20).
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and McIntire (id. at
20-21).
3
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 5, 10, 11,
15, 20, and 26 is patentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig
(App. Br. 16-18).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Mullig teaches
"receiv[ing], from the one or more connected user devices, a request for
displaying independently derived media content," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 20 (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 19-20).
Specifically, Appellants assert that "Mullig disclose[s] displaying multiple
live video feeds in conjunction with a primary video feed," but "Mullig does
not explicitly disclose that these multiple live video feeds are received 'from
the one or more connected user devices'" (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 19-
20).
We are not persuaded. First, the claims do not require that video
feeds, i.e., "independently derived media content," are themselves received
from user devices for display. Instead, the claims recite receiving "a request
for displaying" that independently derived media content ( claim 1 ( emphasis
added)).
4
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
Second, Appellants argue Mullig while the Examiner relies on
Matsubara (Final Act. 6). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments that Mullig
does not teach the limitation "receiv[ing], from the one or more connected
user devices, a request for displaying independently derived media content,"
does not persuade us that the Examiner erred because the Examiner relies on
Matsubara to teach that limitation. Therefore, Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references
teaches "receiv[ing], from the one or more connected user devices, a request
for displaying independently derived media content," as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 11 and 20.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig teaches "display[ing] the
independently derived media content located on the main display with the
combined display of the related displayable media content and the
displayable video data," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims
11 and 20 (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 19). Specifically, Appellants assert
the applied references teach that the "independently derived
media content" may be displayed on a user's independent device.
However, nowhere in the applied references is it taught that "the
independently derived media content" is "located on the main
display with the combined display of the related displayable
media content and the displayable video data"
(App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 19).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4), and we
agree, Herigstad teaches "displayable video data" and "related displayable
media content" (Herigstad ,r 26 ("video content" and "other content that may
be of interest to the user ... that coincides with or is related to the video
5
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
content.")). Further, we also agree with the Examiner's finding that
Matsubara teaches "independently derived media content" (Ans. 3 ( citing
Matsubara ,r 57); Final Act. 6). Even further, we agree with the Examiner's
finding (Final Act. 7; Ans. 3) that Mullig teaches a "main display with the
combined display" of various media content (Mullig ,r,r 58-59 ("live video
feeds in a 'primary' video pane 401 and ... additional live video feeds in
'preview' video panes 403 of the main display dialog window 400," Fig. 4).
Appellants' argument that "nowhere in the applied references" is a
combined display of independently derived media content, displayable video
data, and related displayable media content taught because Mullig [instead]
disclose[ s] displaying multiple live video feeds in conjunction with a
primary video feed" (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 19) does not address the
Examiner's combination of teachings. In particular, the Examiner combines
Mullig, which teaches a main display presenting a combination of various
content, with Herigstad and Matsubara, which describe various types of
content, i.e., "displayable video data," "related displayable media content,"
and "independently derived media content," to teach "display[ing] the
independently derived media content located on the main display with the
combined display of the related displayable media content and the
displayable video data" (see Final Act. 4--7). Appellants have not addressed
this combination, instead arguing only that Mullig fails to teach this
limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references
(In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F. 2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
6
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig teaches
"display[ing] the independently derived media content located on the main
display with the combined display of the related displayable media content
and the displayable video data," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 11 and 20.
Issue 3
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined the teachings
of Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 18-
19). Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner "has not articulated a
reason why a person skilled in the art would combine the prior art
references, does not have adequate evidentiary basis for such a finding, and
has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation to combine"
(App. Br. 16-17 (citations omitted); Reply Br. 18-19).
We are not persuaded. We determine the Examiner has articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning for the combination of Herigstad,
Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig. Specifically, the Examiner finds an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig because all the
references teach providing a user "with additional content" and "an
enhanced entertainment experience for the user (Ans. 3; Final Act. 7).
Specifically, the Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
combined Afram with Herigstad to "allow[] for an increasing amount of
available content to be presented" and to "allow access to additional content
relating to an item in a data scroll in response to user input" (Final Act. 6
(citing Afram ,r,r 1-2, 14, 30); Ans. 2)).
7
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
The Examiner next finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Matsubara with the combined
teachings of Herigstad and Afram to allow viewers who are watching or
accessing content on one device to have the ability to continue viewing the
content by passing it to a second device (Final Act. 7 ( citing Matsubara ,r,r 2,
3, 7); Ans. 2). The Examiner then finds combining the teachings of Mullig
with the teachings of Heristad, Aftram, and Matsubar "provide[ s] an
enhanced entertainment experience for the user" that has "additional
content" (Final Act. 7 ( citing Mullig ,r 4); Ans. 2-3).
Thus, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning. We are not persuaded by Appellants' assertion that the
Examiner "has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation to
combine." Appellants do not address the stated motivations, and,
accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings of Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, and Mullig.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara,
and Mullig. We likewise sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4, 5,
8-10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see
App. Br. 16-18).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, 20, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara,
and Mullig is affirmed.
8
Appeal2018-005274
Application 12/494,539
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and
Leinonen is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and Konig
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and Covell
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Herigstad, Afram, Matsubara, Mullig, and
McIntire 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9