Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2020

14501941 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2020)

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.
14/501,941 09/30/2014 Roger N. Pantos 082438.029951 5757
139020 7590 07/28/2020
BakerHostetler / Apple Inc.
Washington Square, Suite 1100,
1050 Connecticut Ave, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
PARK, SUNGHYOUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROGER N. PANTOS and ZHENHENG LI
____________________

Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–6, 9–15, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–30, and
33–41. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 16–18, 22, 23, 26, 31, and 32 have been cancelled.
Appeal Br. 12–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 37 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method of rendering a media asset at a media player,
comprising:
[A.] during a normal playback mode, retrieving at the media
player from a media source a plurality of first
transmission segments that contain coded video data of
the media asset, the coded video data representing
frames of asset content at a first temporal spacing;
[B.] during an enhanced playback mode, retrieving at the
media player from the media source a second
transmission segment that contains coded video data of
the media asset, the coded video data representing
frames of asset content at a second temporal spacing
larger than the first temporal spacing, wherein all
frames of the second transmission segment are coded by
intra-coding;
[C.] selecting intra-coded frames from the retrieved second
transmission segment having only intra-coded frames,
based on a playback speed of the enhanced playback
mode;
[D.] decoding, at the media player, the coded video data of
the selected intra-coded frames; and
[E.] rendering the decoded video data on a display of the
media player.
37. The method of claim 1, wherein, the first and second
transmission segments are stored by the media source prior
to retrieval, and the retrieving steps include receiving the
respective transmission segments from the media source via
a communications network.

Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Lev US 6,057,832 May 2, 2000
Horner US 2002/0112247 A1 Aug. 15, 2002
Manders US 2008/0317246 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Chen US 2012/0042090 A1 Feb. 16, 2012

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–6, 9–15, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–30, 35,
37, 39, and 41, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Lev and Manders. Final Act. 6–12.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 1. To the extent that
Appellant discusses claim 37, Appellant merely repeats or references the
arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. Such a repeated argument (or
referenced argument) is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus,
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 4–6, 9–15, 19–21,
24, 25, 27–30, 35, 37, 39, and 41. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim for this rejection. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 4–6, 9–15, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–30,
35, 37, 39, and 41 further herein.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

4
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 33, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lev, Manders, and Chen. Final
Act. 12–14.
The Examiner rejects claims 38 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lev, Manders, and Horner.
Final Act. 14–15.
Appellant does not present arguments for claims 33, 34, 26, 38, and
40. Because we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1, the
rejections of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejections of
claims 3, 34, 26, 38, and 40 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
A. Claim 1
A.1.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Lev’s system operates on a single MPEG compressed
video file that has a single temporal spacing among coded
frames. . . . This discussion shows that there is only one file
received by Lev’s system - an MPEG file - and it is processed
after reception to create the anchor data file 2 and the
complemental data file 3. . . . In each instance a user requests a
FFWD command, the receiver is sent the anchor picture frames
of the MPEG file, which have the same temporal spacing as the
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

5
MPEG file. There is no disclosure that different transmission
segments are received with different temporal spacings of coded
data.
. . .
First, a broadest reasonable interpretation analysis does
not justifying ignoring language from pending claims. Here,
claim 1 describes the claimed techniques in a clear,
straightforward way. It refers both to “retrieving . . . a plurality
of first transmission segments that contain coded video data
. . . representing frames of asset content at a first temporal
spacing” and “retrieving . . . a second transmission segment that
contains coded video data . . . representing frames of asset
content at a second temporal spacing larger than the first
temporal spacing.” As discussed, the art does not teach or
suggest receiving different transmission segments are received
with different temporal spacings of coded data.
Appeal Br. 5–8.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s argument
appears to conflate the “spacing among coded frames” (constant at 1/30 of a
second (Spec. ¶ 41)) with the claimed “asset content at a first temporal
spacing,” i.e., the temporal spacing of asset content (time interval between
selected frames of content). Appellant’s figures 4 and 5 show the
relationship between the first temporal spacing and the second temporal
spacing. Spec. ¶¶ 35–38.
Lev discloses:
The server unit 20 further includes a merger module 26
coupled to the server control system 21 and effective to
recompose the video information from the mass storage device
24 into a compressed video stream, according to the user request
command in register 23. Thus, if the user request is a Normal
PLAY command, merger module 26 is effective to recompose
the video information to include both the anchor picture frames
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

6
(e.g., the I-frames) from the Anchor Data file 2, and the
predictive picture frames (e.g., the B-frames and P-frames) from
the Complemental Data file 3, as controlled by the Pointer file
4. On the other hand, if the user request is a Fast PLAY (FFWD
or FBWD) command, then the server control system 21 passes
only the anchor picture frames from the Anchor Data file 2 to be
decoded and displayed.
The Fast PLAY mode of operation may be a Fast Forward
PLAY (FFWD), or a Fast Backward PLAY (FBWD). If the
command is FFWD, the server passes only the anchor frames
from the Anchor Data file 2 as described above
Lev col. 5:53–6:4 (emphasis added). By the server unit 20 passing only the
I-frames to the viewer unit 30, the viewer unit 30 is retrieving asset content
at a different temporal spacing (fast play) than when the I-frames are
recomposed (merged) with the B-frames and P-frames by the server and then
retrieved by the viewer unit 30 (normal play). See Lev, Figure 5.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that Lev does
disclose “retrieving . . . a plurality of first transmission segments that contain
coded video data . . . representing frames of asset content at a first temporal
spacing” and “retrieving . . . a second transmission segment that contains
coded video data . . . representing frames of asset content at a second
temporal spacing larger than the first temporal spacing” as required by
claim 1.
A.2.
Also, Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Second, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
language is incompatible with the teachings of Lev. . . . Lev’s
system, however, must discard frames associated with the
smaller temporal spacing to provide a pleasing visual cadence
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

7
when playing according to a Fast Play mode. It receives a single
MPEG file, splits out the complementary data from the anchor
data, and plays only the anchor data. Lev, Col. 4:27-56.
Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, we determine that Lev’s viewer unit 30 does not
discard frames (B-frames and P-frames) in fast play, but rather Lev’s viewer
unit 30 only retrieves I-frames. See Lev, Col. 5:53–6:4.
A.3.
Further, Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
[T]he spacing of the intra-frames in Lev’s second video is pre-
determined by the entity that initially MPEG-coded the first
video, as those second video’s intra-frames are merely extracted
from the first video. In contrast, Applicant claims a technique in
which the spacing of the second video’s intra-frames is
decoupled from the spacing of the intra-frames in the first video,
because in Applicant’s appealed claims, the second video is not
claimed to be extracted from the first video.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Lev discloses having a fast play limited to I-frames (anchor
picture frames) that were split out of the MPEG-coded data
stream. See Lev, Col. 6, lines 36–45. Therefore, according to
Lev’s method a Fast PLAY cannot be based on I-Frames with
temporal spacing that is independent of the temporal spacing of
I-frames in the Normal Play.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
As to Appellant’s above assertions, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that
Appellant’s second video can be extracted from the first video as shown at
Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

8
Appellant’s Figure 5. “For example, an enhanced playback segment may be
generated for a predetermined number of media segments.” Spec. ¶ 36.
Thus, in by Appellant’s own terms, Appellant’s Fast PLAY is not based on
I-Frames with temporal spacing that is independent of the temporal spacing
of I-frames in the Normal Play.” Also, we note that “independent” is not a
requirement of Appellant’s claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4–6, 9–15, 19–21,
24, 25, 27–30 and 33–41 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–6, 9–15, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–
30 and 33–41 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 9–
15, 19–21,
24, 25, 27–
30, 35, 37,
39, 41
103 Lev, Manders 1, 4–6, 9–
15, 19–21,
24, 25, 27–
30, 35, 37,
39, 41

33, 34, 36 103 Lev, Manders, Chen 33, 34, 36
38, 40 103 Lev, Manders, Horner 38, 40
Overall
Outcome

1, 4–6, 9–
15, 19–21,
24, 25, 27–
30, 33–41

Appeal 2019-002348
Application 14/501,941

9
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