WideOrbit Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 9, 20202019004954 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/679,755 04/06/2015 Robert D. Green 100166.407 5239 500 7590 12/09/2020 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER MENGESHA, MULUGETA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2020 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ROBERT D. GREEN, JOHN W. MORRIS, JAMES M. KOTT, and BRIAN S. BOSWORTH ____________________ Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–22, 43, and 62, which constitute all the claims pending. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as WideOrbit Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention generally relates to selecting and inserting content into a mediacast using “replaceable content segments” based on analyzing only a region of the rendered content in the mediacast source signal, the region being less than the entire “rendering surface,” to determine whether a particular visual element is present. Spec. 48:9–20, 58:5–16, Figs. 4, 8, 9, Abstract. Claims 1, 22, 43, and 62 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method of operation in a content insertion system, the content insertion system comprising at least one processor and at least one nontransitory processor-readable medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the method comprising: receiving an electronic mediacast source signal which comprises a plurality of replaceable content segments interspersed with a plurality of non-replaceable content segments, the replaceable content segments consisting of one or more sections of replaceable content material which includes image content data and the non-replaceable content segments consisting of one or more sections of non-replaceable content material which includes image content data; determining a defined region of a rendering surface of the image content data of the received electronic mediacast source signal, the defined region comprising only a portion of the spatial rendering surface that is smaller than the entire spatial rendering surface; reviewing only the defined region for a presence or absence of at least one defined visual content element contained within at least one of the replaceable content material or the non- replaceable content material to determine whether a portion of the received electronic mediacast source signal corresponds to a non-replaceable content segment, which comprises one or more sections of non-replaceable content material that are entirely Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 3 non-replaceable, or a replaceable content segment, which comprises one or more sections of replaceable content material that are entirely replaceable, based on at least one of a presence or an absence of the defined visual content element in the defined region of the rendering surface; in response to determining the portion of the received electronic mediacast source signal corresponds to a non- replaceable content segment, retaining the non-replaceable content segment; in response to determining the portion of the received electronic mediacast source signal corresponds to a replaceable content segment, selecting a replacement content segment from a store of replacement content segments of the content insertion system, the replacement content segment comprising one or more sections of replacement content material, each of the one or more sections of replacement content material comprises a plurality of entire frames of image content data; and replacing the one or more sections of the replaceable content material within the replaceable content segment with the one or more sections of replacement content material within the replacement content segment. The Pending Rejections Claims 1, 3–11, 14–21, 43, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883 A1; May 10, 2012) and Tischer (US 2008/0195938 A1; Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 2–18. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Asam, Tischer, and Kumar (US 2012/0192222 A1; July 26, 2012). Final Act. 18–23. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Asam, Tischer, and Saeger (US 5,351,135; Sept. 27, 1994). Final Act. 23–24. Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 4 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 14–21, 43, and 62 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Asam and Tischer as a group. See Appeal Br. 17–21. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues only that Asam and Tischer, separately and in combination, fail to teach or suggest a “defined region comprising only a portion of the spatial rendering surface that is smaller than the entire spatial rendering surface” and “reviewing only the defined region” (the “disputed limitation”), as recited in representative claim 1. Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant notes the Examiner does not find Asam teaches the disputed limitation and contends the Examiner’s finding that Tischer teaches the disputed limitation is incorrect. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant correctly summarizes Tischer’s disclosures as involving two distinct methods for identifying media component insertion areas—a first method using tags or other embedded metadata and a second method using an image recognition engine (IRE). Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant also correctly argues that Tischer’s first method (i.e., using tags or other embedded metadata) “does not disclose or suggest the review of a rendering surface at all, let alone a defined region.” Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner does not find otherwise. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–5. Notwithstanding the Examiner’s reference to Tischer’s discussion of the tag method of identifying media component insertion areas, the Examiner finds Tischer disclosures relating to the image recognition engine teach the disputed limitation and concludes it would have been obvious to modify Asam to include Tischer’s teachings to insert content “based on the Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 5 recognition of image or visual indicators.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Tischer ¶¶ 26, 29–30, Figs. 1–3) (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds, among other things, Tischer discloses “[t]he IRE 208 recognizes and identifies the car 304 and determines the available media component insertion areas according to pre-defined parameters.” Ans. 4 (quoting Tischer ¶ 30) (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds Tischer’s method using the IRE teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. More specifically, we understand the Examiner to find Tischer’s disclosure that the “IRE 208 recognizes and identifies the car,” Tischer ¶ 30, teaches “determining a defined region of a rendering surface of the image content data of the received electronic mediacast source signal, the defined region comprising only a portion of the spatial rendering surface that is smaller than the entire spatial rendering surface,” as recited in representative claim 1. We also understand the Examiner to find Tischer’s disclosure that the system then “determines the available media component insertion areas,” id., teaches “reviewing only the defined region” (i.e., the region defining the car). See Ans. 4 (“It is noted that in the fig.3 media content 302 the IRE 208 recognize and identifies the car 304 out of the media content 302 for advertisement insertion of a determined insertion area 308 of the car 304.” (emphasis omitted)). Appellant further argues Tischer’s IRE method to identify media component insertion areas also fails to teach the disputed limitation because Tischer’s IRE “appears to review an entire frame of a spatial rendering surface in search for potential insertion areas.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts that, because Tischer’s IRE reviews and analyzes an entire frame or scene “to recognize objects or spaces that can be used as media component Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 6 insertion areas,” Tischer fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 3–4. More specifically, Appellant contends Tischer’s cited disclosures fail to teach or suggest “reviewing only the defined region,” which comprises “comprising only a portion of the spatial rendering surface that is smaller than the entire spatial rendering surface” because Tischer’s IRE appears to review the entire spatial rendering surface. Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 3–4. Representative claim 1 does not recite how the system determines the defined region. Appellant explains that the system may use “one or more defined regions of a rendering surface . . . as a tool for partitioning areas contained within a viewer frame into independent areas of image content data.” Appeal Br. 18; accord Spec. 48:9–12 (“Detection regions (see Figure 9) may be utilized as a tool for partitioning areas contained within a viewer frame into independent areas of image content data. Detection regions also allow for the use of multiple areas of the viewer frame to be input factors in an overall detection scheme.”). Appellant also explains that “[t]hese regions of the viewer frame may be predetermined or identified automatically or by an administrator or content producer.” Appeal Br. 18; accord Spec. 48:12– 14 (“These areas of the viewer frame may be predetermined or identified automatically or by an administrator or content producer”). As discussed above with respect to the Examiner’s findings, Tischer at least suggests the IRE automatically determines the defined region—i.e., the region including the identified car. Tischer ¶ 30 (“The IRE 208 Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 7 recognizes and identifies the car 304.”). The fact that Tischer’s IRE may2 review the entire scene to recognize and identify the car, this process teaches the recited step of determining a defined region. Once that region is defined, Tischer also at least suggests that “determin[ing] the available media component insertion areas according to the pre-defined parameters,” Tischer ¶ 30, requires reviewing only the defined region. These disclosures at least suggest that identifying the car region because that region is more likely to include media content insertion areas meeting the pre-defined parameters. Recognizing and identifying the car appears to serve no purpose if Tischer’s system subsequently reviews the entire spatial rendering surface after already identifying the car region. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Tischer at least suggests reviewing only the region in which the IRE identified the car. Therefore, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that the Tischer teaches or suggests the disputed limitation—i.e., a “defined region comprising only a portion of the spatial rendering surface that is smaller than the entire spatial rendering surface” and “reviewing only the defined region”—as recited in representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as obvious over Asam and Tischer. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 43 and 62 and dependent claims 3–11 and 14–21, which Appellant did not argue separately with particularity, for the same reasons. 2 We note that, similar to Appellant’s Specification, Tischer does not provide details regarding how the IRE “recognizes and identifies the car 304” (i.e., how the IRE determines the defined region including the car). Appeal 2019-004954 Application 14/679,755 8 THE OTHER REJECTIONS With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 22 as obvious over Asam, Tischer, and Kumar and the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13 as obvious over Asam, Tischer, and Saeger, Appellant argues only that Kumar (with respect to claim 22) and Saeger (with respect to claims 12 and 13) fail to remedy the deficiencies identified with respect to independent claim 1 and, therefore, claims 12, 13, and 22 are allowable for the same reasons as asserted with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21–22. As discussed above, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions that Tischer fails to teach or suggest the disputed subject matter recited in representative claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 22 as obvious over Asam and Tischer in view of either Kumar or Saeger. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–11, 14– 21, 43, 62 103 Asam, Tischer 1, 3–11, 14– 21, 43, 62 22 103 Asam, Tischer, Kumar 22 12, 13 103 Asam, Tischer, Saeger 12, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 3–22, 43, 62 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation