Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14581760 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/581,760
142810 7590
Newport IP, LLC
1400 112th Ave SE
Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/23/2014 Yongjun Wu
09/26/2018
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.
MS2-0012US 4025
EXAMINER
IDOWU, OLUGBENGA 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
scott@newportip.com
docketing@newportip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONGJUN WU, BALACHANDAR SIV AKUMAR,
and SHYAM SADHWANI
Appeal2018-003526
Application 14/581,760
Technology Center 2400
Before: MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-20, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants state that Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 13, 2017, "Appeal Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed Feb. 14 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
Dec. 14, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Dec. 15, 2016, "Final
Appeal2018-003526
Application 14/ 581,760
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of video rights management. See
Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Illustrative Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method implemented in a computing device, the
method comprising:
obtaining video content from a media source, the video
content including multiple video frames that include metadata
as well as protected video content;
extracting the metadata from the multiple video frames,
the extracting the metadata including removing the metadata
from the multiple video frames;
providing the extracted metadata to a video decoder
without providing the multiple video frames to the video
decoder for processing by the video decoder;
providing the multiple video frames with the metadata
removed from the extracting to a secure digital rights
management component;
receiving, from the secure digital rights management
component, a re-encrypted version of the multiple video frames,
the re-encrypted version of the multiple video frames
comprising a version of the multiple video frames from which
the protected video content has been decrypted and re-
encrypted based on a key of the computing device;
providing the re-encrypted version of the multiple video
frames to the video decoder for decoding of the re-encrypted
version of the multiple video frames rather than decoding of the
Act."), and the Specification (filed Dec. 23, 2014, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2018-003526
Application 14/ 581,760
multiple video frames; and providing the extracted metadata
and the decoded video frames to an application for playback.
Schindler, et al.,
Ducharme
Brueck, et al.,
References and Rejections
US 2010/0066904 Al Mar. 18, 2010
US 2013/0202109 Al Aug.8.2013
US 2014/0247887 Al Sep. 4, 2014
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ducharme, Schindler, and Brueck. Final Act. 3-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-22.
CLAIMS 1-20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER DUCHARME, SCHINDLER, AND BRUECK.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ducharme and Schindler
fails to teach providing the extracted metadata to the video decoder without
providing the multiple video frames to the video decoder for processing by
the video decoder, as recited in Claim 1 and as commensurately recited in
independent Claims 7 and 13. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Brueck
so teaches. Id. (citing Brueck, ,r 36).
According to Appellants, Brueck teaches just-in-time (JIT) encoding
of media content, but fails to disclose providing extracted metadata and
providing video frames stripped of metadata. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants
characterize Brueck as teaching the use of a media container reader to "read
a container (sometimes called a wrapper) to obtain metadata information,
3
Appeal2018-003526
Application 14/ 581,760
and ... pass the video and audio samples to the decoder." Id. ( citing
Brueck, ,r 36).
The Examiner finds Brueck teaches a system that extracts metadata,
such as flags indicating the frame type and duration, and then, the audio and
video data, stripped of flag metadata, are sent to decoders. Ans. 11 ( citing
Brueck, ,r 36, 11. 38-51). We disagree.
Brueck discloses:
In one exemplary embodiment, the JIT encoder 108 fetches a
file ( or portion of a file) that has the encoded media content
142. The container reader 122 reads the container, such as the
A VI container or MP4 container ( or other types of containers,
such as MP3, MKV, or the like). The container reader 122
outputs the encoded video frames 233 and the encoded audio
samples 235, as well as any other metadata information in the
container.
Brueck, ,r 36 (cited by the Examiner) (emphasis added). Brueck teaches a
container reader reads the contents of a container and outputs the encoded
video frames and the metadata information in the container. Brueck
specifically discloses that the output video frames include metadata: "[ t ]he
video frames being output may also include a flag that indicates that it is a
key frame." Brueck, col. 6, 11. 2--4. R. 183. We find no disclosure that
metadata is stripped, and metadata, minus frames, are sent to a decoder.
Because the record before us fails to show the prior art teaches each
claimed limitation, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
4