Charles Tudor et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2022

2020006358 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2022)

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. 15/730,106 10/11/2017 Charles R. Tudor 0222-004-U2 1634 11964 7590 01/07/2022 Shaddock Law Group, PC 1403 Greenbrier Parkway, Suite 150-B9 Chesapeake, VA 23320 EXAMINER MONTOYA, OSCHTA I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2022 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): peter@shaddock-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHARLES R. TUDOR and DANI R. SLEIMAN ___________________ Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method of video broadcasting to video host, via a mobile device. Abstract. The method includes allowing the video host to initiate an audio communication with a user, via the user's 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Worldwide Live Holdings, LLC is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 2 mobile device; the user is able to capture video, via the mobile device, and upload or stream the captured video to the video host. Id. The video host is enabled to engage in audio communications with the user, as the video is being captured, and wherein the audio communication is separate from the audio associated with any video being captured. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method for direct video broadcasting to at least one video host, via a mobile device, comprising: allowing said at least one video host to initiate at least an audio communication with a user, via a mobile device; allowing said user, via said mobile device, to accept said initiated audio communication from said at least one video host; providing, in response to said user accepting said initiated audio communication, audio communication between said user and said at least one video host, via said mobile device; and allowing, in response to said user accepting said initiated audio communication, said user to capture live stream video, via said mobile device, and upload or stream said live stream video to said at least one video host, wherein said at least one video host is enabled to engage in audio communications with said user, via said mobile device, as said live stream video is being captured, wherein said audio communication is provided via said mobile device and wherein said live stream video and any audio associated with said live stream video is provided via said mobile device, wherein said audio communication is separate from said audio associated with said live stream video, and wherein said audio associated with said live stream video is captured via a microphone that is separate from a microphone used to capture said audio communication. Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 5 through 8, 10 through 12, 14, 16 through 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Levinson (US 2013/0005294 A1; published Jan. 3, 2013) and Chang (US 2017/0214945 A1; published July 27, 2017). Ans. 2-5. The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Levinson, Chang, and Gefen (US 2011/0063415 A1; published Mar. 17, 2011). Ans. 5. The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Levinson, Chang, and Hanover (US 2012/0258681 A1; published Oct. 11, 2012). Ans. 5-6. The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Levinson, Chang, and Felt (US 2011/0187865 A1; published Aug. 4, 2011). Ans. 6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 is in error as the combination of the references do not teach a video 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 20, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed September 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed August 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 10, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 4 host having an audio communication with a user of a mobile device and the mobile device uploading or streaming a video live stream where the audio of the live stream and the audio communication are separate and captured by a separate microphones as claimed. Appeal Br. 10-18; Reply Br. 3-6. Further, Appellant argues that the skilled artisan would not combine the teachings of Levinson and Chang, and that the Examiner has not provided a proper rationale to demonstrate that the skilled artisan would combine the references. Appeal Br. 18-22. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that the combination for the references teach using a mobile device which both: a),is in audio communication with a video host, and b), live streams video and an audio track separate from the audio communication to the video host, as claimed. Independent claim 1 recites “audio communication between said user and said at least one video host, via said mobile device” and that “audio communication is provided via said mobile device and wherein said live stream video and any audio associated with said live stream video is provided via said mobile device, wherein said audio communication is separate from said audio associated with said live stream video, and wherein said audio associated with said live stream video is captured via a microphone that is separate from a microphone used to capture said audio communication.” Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations. Thus, the scope of the independent claims is that there are two audio communications from the mobile device to the video host, captured by using two microphones: a) the communication from the user; and b) the audio from the live stream. The Examiner finds that Levinson teaches allowing a user to capture Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 5 live stream video with a mobile device and share it with a video host. Final Act. 3 (citing Levinson ¶¶ 6-7). We concur with this finding. The Examiner also finds that Levinson teaches that any audio stream associated with the live stream is separate from the audio communication. Id. We have reviewed the teachings of Levinson, especially paragraphs 6 and 7 cited by the Examiner, and disagree as we do not see that Levinson discusses separate audio for the communication and the livestream with the same mobile device as claimed. The Examiner also finds that Chang discloses audio associated with live stream video is captured via a microphone that is separate from a microphone used to capture audio communication. Final Act. 3 (citing Chang ¶ 40) Ans. (citing Chang ¶¶ 5-8, 26, 64, 67, 68). We agree that Chang teaches that separate microphones can be used for the audio associated with a video, however, we similarly do not find that Chang discusses separate audio for the communication and the livestream with the same mobile device. Thus, we concur with Appellant’s arguments that the combination of the references do not teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16 through 18, and 20 which are similarly rejected over the combination of Levinson and Chang. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 13, 15 and 19 similarly rely upon the teachings of Levinson and Chang to teaches the limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Final Act. 5-6. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections for the same reason as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12. Appeal 2020-006358 Application 15/730,106 6 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5-8, 10- 12, 14, 16-18, 20 103 Levinson, Chang 1, 3, 5-8, 10- 12, 14, 16- 18, 20 2, 13 103 Levinson, Chang, Gefen 2, 13 4, 15 103 Levinson, Chang, Hanover 4, 15 9, 19 103 Levinson, Chang, Felt 9, 19 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED