Satori Worldwide, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020004012 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/933,192 03/22/2018 Oleg Khabinov M102103 1340US1 17027 7055
148646 7590 09/29/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30537-7037
EXAMINER
SERRAO, RANODHI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
patents@mz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OLEG KHABINOV, KYLE LAU,
BOAZ SEDAN, and MYKHAILO AIZATSKYI

_____________

Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest in this
appeal is “Satori Worldwide, LLC.” See Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Embodiments of Appellant’s claimed subject matter relate generally
to “a data communication system and, in particular, a system for streaming
live video in a real-time publish-subscribe messaging system.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Representative Claim 1
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer processing device, a first
message on a first channel of a plurality of channels, the first
message encapsulating a video frame of a plurality of video
frames;
analyzing, by the computer processing device, the video
frame to identify one or more objects within the video frame;
[L] generating, by the computer processing device, a
second message comprising annotation metadata describing a
characteristic of the video frame based on the analysis, the
annotation metadata generated in response to the identification
of the one or more objects;
publishing the first message to a second channel of the
plurality of channels; and
publishing the second message to a third channel of the
plurality of channels.

Appeal Br. 10. Claims App. (disputed “generating” step bracketed
and emphasized as L).

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed August 1, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed December 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 3, 2020, and the Reply Brief, filed May
1, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

3
Prior Art Evidence Relied Upon by the Examiner
Name Reference Date
Candelore US 2011/0262105 A1 Oct. 27, 2011
Shang et al. (“Shang”) US 2016/0182948 A1 Jun. 23, 2016

Table of Rejection
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 103 Candelore, Shang

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are forfeited
or waived.3 See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Throughout this opinion,
we give the claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)

3 See In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (some internal citation omitted):
It is well established that “[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). “Whereas
forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a
known right.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464
(1938)) (additional citations omitted). The two scenarios can
have different consequences for challenges raised on appeal, id.
at 733–34, and for that reason, it is worth attending to which label
is the right one in a particular case.
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

4
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis in our analysis below.

Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant acknowledges that “Candelore
describes receiving a video frame that contains metadata and using character
recognition/OCR4 to extract the metadata from the video frame.” Appeal Br.
5. However, Appellant contends:
Candelore does not disclose “generating, by the computer
processing device, a second message comprising annotation
metadata describing a characteristic of the video frame based on
the analysis, the annotation metadata generated in response to
the identification of the one or more objects,” as recited in
claim 1 because the metadata is already generated when the
video frame is received since the video frame contains the
metadata. Candelore simply extracts such metadata and does
not disclose generating any additional metadata in response to
the metadata extracted from the received video frame.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
Paragraph [0039] of Candelore states in part, “Once the OCR
function has been carried out, the resulting information is stored
in a metadata database 154, and can be used, for example, to
present the viewer a different user interface (UI) via TV user
interface function 158. Metadata database 154 may be
embodied in a hard disc drive or other storage medium that is
used to store the content.”
Ans. 5.

4 “OCR” is an acronym for optical character recognition.
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

5
The Examiner finds:
Clearly, the resulting information that is stored in metadata
database 154 has been generated from the OCR function and is
additional metadata. Even if the received video frame contains
metadata, this metadata is not being directly transferred and
stored into a database. The system of Candelore performs OCR
function and generates resulting information (metadata)[,] then
stores this metadata into Metadata database 154. If Candelore
were not to generate additional metadata, it would simply
transfer the received metadata from the video frame into
metadata database 154.
Id. (emphasis added).

Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:
Issue: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Candelore
and Shang would have collectively taught or suggested the disputed
limitation L of claim 1:
analyzing, by the computer processing device, the video
frame to identify one or more objects within the video frame;
[L] generating, by the computer processing device, a
second message comprising annotation metadata describing a
characteristic of the video frame based on the analysis, the
annotation metadata generated in response to the identification
of the one or more objects;
Claim 1 (bracketing and emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

6
Claim Construction
We begin our analysis with claim construction, which we find is
dispositive to this appeal. We consider the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See Morris, 127 F.3d at
1054. Turning to the Specification for context, we find non-limiting,
exemplary descriptions of the claims 1 terms: “generating,” “annotation
metadata,” and “objects within the video frame.”

Claim Term “generating”
We begin by construing the claim 1 term “generating” as recited in
claim 1:
analyzing, by the computer processing device, the video
frame to identify one or more objects within the video frame;
[L] generating, by the computer processing device, a
second message comprising annotation metadata describing a
characteristic of the video frame based on the analysis, the
annotation metadata generated in response to the identification
of the one or more objects;
Claim 1 (bracketing and emphasis added).

We turn to Appellant’s “Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter’ that
cites to support at paragraph 147, and in Figure 10 of the original
Specification. See Appeal Br. 2. Paragraph 147 of the Specification
describes:
In block 1004, the processing device analyzes the video frame
to generate annotation data describing a characteristic of the
video frame. For example, a frame analyzer may detect an
object within the video frame. For example, a frame analyzer
operated by the computer processing device can apply to the
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

7
video frame suitable machine learning, artificial intelligence,
computer vision processes, or other processes to identify the
object. The analysis may be structured to identify a certain type
of object (e.g., face, vehicle, signs, houses, locations, etc.) or
may identify objects generally. The second message can then
include, for example, an indication of the analysis performed
and an indication of the results as annotation metadata. The
second message can also include a sequence number or source
identifier to identify the source and order of the messages for
reconstruction.
Spec. ¶ 147 (emphasis added).
We note that Figure 10 of Appellant’s drawings merely describes at
block 1004: “Generating a second message comprising annotations
describing a characteristic of the video frame.”
Consistent with the language of the claim, and the Specification (e.g.,
paragraph 147, Figure 10), we interpret the claim 1 term “generating” as
producing “a second message,” which comprises “annotation metadata” that
may describe any “characteristic of the video frame” based upon an
identification analysis. Claim 1 (emphasis added).

Claim Term “annotation metadata”
Turning to paragraph 29 of the Specification, we find a non-limiting,
exemplary description of the claim 1 term “annotation metadata:” “In some
embodiments, the annotation data may be provided as new metadata that
replaces one or more portions of a message received by the frame analyzer.
The metadata may then be encapsulated in a new message associated with
the video frame and include the new or modified annotation data.”

Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

8
Consistent with the language of the claim and the Specification (e.g.,
at paragraph 29), we interpret the claim 1 term “annotation metadata” as
being any data about data (i.e., metadata) that may include “new or
modified annotation data.” Spec. ¶ 29 (emphasis added).

Claim Term “objects” and Claim Phrase “objects within the video frame”
Turning to paragraph 30 of the Specification, we find a non-limiting,
exemplary description of the claim 1 phrase “objects within the video
frame:”
Video frames may be encapsulated into messages
published on one channel with additional annotation data, such
as metadata indicating one or more elements or characteristics
of the video frame, published in a second channel. For example,
the metadata may indicate one or more objects in the video
frame, as well as details of the objects such as size, position,
color, or the like.

Spec. ¶ 30 (emphasis added).

Consistent with the language of the claim, and the Specification (e.g.,
at paragraph 30), we interpret the claim 1 phrase “objects within the video
frame” as being any “objects in the video frame.” Spec. ¶ 30.
Given the aforementioned context in the Specification that informs
our claim interpretation,5 we turn to the evidence, and note that Candelore

5 Our reviewing court guides that “the specification is ‘the single best guide
to the meaning of a disputed term,’ and that the specification ‘acts as a
dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).

Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

9
describes: “OCR and/or pattern recognition techniques are utilized to capture
metadata and/or command information associated with digital television
content from a television receiver device serving as an access device.”
Candelore ¶ 29 (emphasis added).
We find the results of the OCR analysis in Candelore (e.g., at
paragraphs 28–29) are at least modified metadata and are therefore
generated “annotation metadata,” within the meaning of claim 1, consistent
with the description found in Appellant’s Specification at paragraph 29:
“The metadata may then be encapsulated in a new message associated with
the video frame and include the new or modified annotation data.”
Candelore describes an OCR process that is used to recognize
embedded character information in Candelore’s preexisting metadata, as
provided by the “Cable television Multiple Service Operators (MSOs)” in
accordance with the “digital TV standard referred to as Open Cable
Application Platform (OCAP).” Candelore ¶ 4.
Candelore also describes that “[u]nder this scenario, metadata (and
the user interface) will be managed by OCAP applets downloaded to set-top
boxes sold at retail.” Id. (emphasis added). Candelore further describes that
the “video frame can then be processed at 36 using pattern matching and/or
optical character recognition to extract the metadata from the video frame.”
Candelore ¶ 30 (emphasis added).
Thus, we find that character image information in the video frame is
analyzed by Candelore’s OCR process (as applied to the preexisting video
frame metadata) and is recognized (identified) as modified metadata
(character codes). See Id. In this manner, Candelore’s OCR process
generates annotation metadata (character codes) in response to analyzing
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

10
and identifying character image information that is embedded within
Candelore’s video frame data. See Id.
The preexisting video frame metadata is thus modified because the
OCR process converts an image representation of a character into a specific
corresponding encoded representation of the character, as is known in the
art.6 We find that a character, such as a letter or numeral, is an object
within the meaning of claim 1. Therefore, we find that Candelore’s OCR-
recognized (identified) characters (letters, numerals) are “objects within the
video frame” within the meaning of claim 1, consistent with Appellant’s
description in the Specification at paragraph 30, as being “one or more
objects in the video frame.” (emphasis added).
Because Candelore describes using OCR and/or pattern matching
techniques to analyze the preexisting metadata embedded in a video frame to
identify one or more characters (i.e., objects) within the video frame, we find
Candelore teaches or suggests the step of “analyzing, by the computer
processing device, the video frame to identify one or more objects within the
video frame,” within the meaning of claim 1.
Thus, we find the claimed “analyzing” is performed by Candelore’s
“OCR and/or pattern recognition techniques” (Candelore ¶ 29) to recognize
characters for the purpose of creating “an alternative user interface to that
supplied via the OCAP application.” Candelore ¶ 5. And the identified
“one or more objects within the video frame” in claim 1 are taught or
suggested by the OCR-identified character images embedded within

6 See, e.g., standard character encodings such as Unicode, and or “ASCII.”
ASCII is an acronym for American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, as is known in the art. See, e.g., Wikipedia.
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

11
Candelore’s video frame (as preexisting metadata).
As noted above, Appellant urges in the Appeal Brief:
[B]ecause the metadata is already generated when the video
frame is received since the video frame contains the metadata.
Candelore simply extracts such metadata and does not disclose
generating any additional metadata in response to the metadata
extracted from the received video frame.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant cites to paragraph 146 of the
Specification, and urges: “Appellant’s specification clearly shows that the
‘annotation metadata’ recited in claim 1 is ‘generated in response to the
identification of the one or more objects,’ as recited in claim 1, and is not
pre-existing metadata that is extracted or copied in any way from a video
frame.” Reply Br. 4.
But we find Candelore’s OCR conversion performs an analysis of
each character image in the video frame data to identify a corresponding
encoded character (e.g., a Unicode character) that is generated annotated
metadata within the meaning of claim 1, because each identified character
code that is generated in response to the OCR analysis is a modification of
the preexisting character image (metadata) contained within the video frame
data, as provided by the MSOs in accordance with the “digital TV standard
referred to as Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP).” Candelore ¶ 4.
As noted above, and consistent with the Specification (e.g., at
paragraph 29), we interpret the claim 1 term “annotation metadata” as being
any data about data (i.e., metadata) that may include “new or modified
annotation data.” Spec. ¶ 29.
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

12
Thus, we find Appellant’s arguments unavailing because such
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims under a broad
but reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
Moreover, Appellant’s argued negative limitation is not claimed: i.e.,
that the generated annotation metadata is “not pre-existing metadata that is
extracted or copied in any way from a video frame.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis
added). We emphasize our finding that the character code output of the
OCR analysis in Candelore is modified annotation data, which is a type of
annotation data. See Spec. ¶ 29: The metadata may . . . include the new or
modified annotation data.” (emphasis added).
To the extent that the scope of any claims on appeal is being
construed broader by the Examiner or the Board than the interpretation
imputed by Appellant’s arguments, we emphasize that, because “applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted).
With respect to the obviousness of all claims before us on appeal, we
also emphasize that “the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the
references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added)
(quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). See also MPEP
§ 2123.
Accordingly, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and on this
record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying
Appeal 2020-004012
Application 15/933,192

13
factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for
independent representative claim 1. Remaining grouped claims 2–20 (not
argued separately) fall with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the collective teachings and suggestions of Candelore and Shang.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Candelore, Shang 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED