Christopher Kennedy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021001131 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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. 13/617,433 09/14/2012 Christopher J. Kennedy 007412.02252 1038 71867 7590 02/16/2022 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER TEKLE, DANIEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. KENNEDY Appeal 2021-001131 Application 13/617,433 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 1 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Specification filed September 14, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed January 9, 2020 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 7, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed December 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001131 Application 13/617,433 2 and 33-42. Claims 3, 4, 6-14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 30-32 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to “identification and/or extraction of a selected . . . video clip from a multimedia program, and providing identifying information to a user to retrieve, view, and/or share the selected video clip.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: receive, from a first device associated with a user, a first user input that was entered at the first device at a first time during an output, by the first device, of a media program; determine, based on the media program, a clip length; and generate, based on the media program and based on the first user input and the clip length, a media clip that comprises a portion of the media program. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). 21. A method, comprising determining an address based on an identification of a user; receiving, by a computing device, a location corresponding to a media clip corresponding to a portion of a media program, wherein the location is created based on: Appeal 2021-001131 Application 13/617,433 3 a first user input, which was input, by the user, at a first time via a user device during an output of the media program, and a clip length, which is based on the media program; and sending, to the address, information for accessing the media clip. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kim US 2005/0210145 A1 Sept. 22, 2005 Nakamura US 2008/0285938 A1 Nov. 20, 2008 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Nakamura. Final Act. 3-9. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the corresponding arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 15, and 21 as obvious over the combination of Kim and Nakamura. Final Act. 3-6. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Nakamura as teaching claim 1’s recitations of “determine, based on the media program, a clip length” (“the determining limitation.” Final Act. 3-4 (citing Nakamura ¶¶ 8, 47, 50, 51). In the Answer, the Examiner additionally points to paragraphs 40 and 49 of Nakamura as disclosing the determining limitation. Ans. 10-11. Appellant argues that Nakamura does not teach or suggest the Appeal 2021-001131 Application 13/617,433 4 determining limitation. Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that Nakamura does not disclose determining based on the media program, a clip length because “[t]o the extent that Nakamura discloses a ‘clip length,’ such would be the length between the user-selected edit start time and edit end time.” Appeal Br. 4. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner states that “Nakamura does teach the claimed invention ‘based on the media program [considering the generated media program], [and] a clip length [selecting start and end point] . . . .’” Ans. 11. But this does not sufficiently explain how setting the total I frames automatically by the portable terminal is based on the media program. Similarly, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 6) that nothing in the cited portions of Nakamura itself discloses how the automatic setting of total I frames is based on the claimed media program. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the rejection’s finding that Nakamura teaches or suggests the determining limitation of claim 1. The remaining claims, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 33-42 are reversed for the same reason. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2021-001131 Application 13/617,433 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33-42 103(a) Kim, Nakamura 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33-42 REVERSED