Ex Parte Wu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201814581760 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation