Ex Parte Baum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

11706040 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111706,040 02/12/2007
72058 7590 10/12/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Geoffrey King Baum
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
58083/394750 (B423) 5512
EXAMINER
JONES, HEATHER RAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY KING BAUM,
LALIT BALCHANDANI, and DANIEL HAI
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' described and claimed invention relates generally to
editing digital video content. Spec. 1. 2 According to the Specification,
Appellants' described and claimed invention "allow[ s] for real-time edit
decision list execution on streaming video to play back an edited video in an
online environment without having to produce and store (for playback) a full
version of the edited video." Id. at 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
requesting a digital media presentation from at least one
server;
in response to the requesting, receiving both an edit
decision list and a media effects set from the server, the edit
decision list associated with the requested digital media
presentation and comprising an identification of a particular
media effect in the media effects set;
after receiving at least a portion of the edit decision list,
requesting and receiving streaming media base data from the
server, the media base data associated with the requested digital
media presentation; and
applying the edit decision list to the streaming media
base data in real-time during playback of the requested digital
media presentation, whereby the particular media affect
included in the media effects set and identified in the edit
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Jan. 31, 2014 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Dec. 22, 2014 ("Br."); the Examiner's
Answer mailed Mar. 13, 2015 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed
Feb. 12, 2007 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
decision list is applied to a portion of the streaming media base
data specified in the edit decision list.
App. Br. 26 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haot et al. (US 2006/0156219
Al; published July 13, 2006) ("Haot''), Kauffman et al. (U.S. Patent
7,280,738 B2; issued Oct. 9, 2007) ("Kauffman"), Ikeda et al. (U.S.
2010/0046924 Al; published Feb. 25, 2010) ("Ikeda"), and Beauregard et al.
(U.S. 2008/0016114 Al; published Jan. 17, 2008) ("Beauregard"). Final
Act. 3-22.
Claims 3, 7, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haot, Kauffman, Ikeda, Beauregard, as applied to claims
1 and 10 above, and further in view ofHegde et al. (US 2002/0169797 Al;
published Nov. 14, 2002) ("Hegde"). Final Act. 22-25.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Haot, Kauffman, Ikeda, Beauregard, and Hegde. Final Act. 25-30.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Unless otherwise noted, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-30), and in the Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 30-32), and we concur with the conclusions
3
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific
arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief.
Regarding the disputed limitations of claim 1, 3 Appellants argue the
Examiner acknowledges in the Final Office Action that Roat and Kauffman
do not teach these limitations, but finds Ikeda does so. Br. 17. According to
Appellants, the Examiner "asserts that Ikeda's 'stream management
information' and 'AV streams' correspond to the 'media effects set' recited
in claim 1." Id. Appellants argue the Examiner errs in this regard because
neither the AV streams (portions of media from a database) nor the stream
management information correspond with the media effects set of claim 1.
Id. 19-20 (citing Ikeda i-fi-f 119, 122-125, 255). Appellants argue that the
Specification provides examples of "media effects sets," including "effects,
graphics, and transitions," Spanish subtitles, and converting video frames to
black-and-white. Id. (citing Spec. i-fi-120, 26, 27). Regarding paragraphs
218-'252 of Ikeda, Appellants argue the teaching of a play list is "simply a
way to multiplex between different AV streams during playback and does
not include a list of media effects that can be applied to either of the
individual AV streams as specified in a separate edit decision list." Id. at 21.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Ikeda teaches the
disputed limitations of the claim, stating the following: "(Figs. 30B and 31
and paragraph [0228] - update kit includes a playlist (edit decision list),
3 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-22 as a group,
focusing on claim 1. See Br. 16-23. Thus, we decide the rejection of these
claims on the basis of representative claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
stream management information, and AV streams (media effects set);
paragraphs [0218]-[0252] - explains the process of adding new clips into the
media)." Final Act. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner makes the same
finding, for the same reasons, and further explains the teaching of Ikeda in
this regard. See Ans. 31.
The Examiner finds that Ikeda teaches an embodiment providing a
video for different views (multi angle sections) from a passenger train; a
BD-ROM includes a video taken from the driver's seat (AV stream #2) and
a video taken from the windows provided on one of the sides of the
compartment. Id. (citing Ikeda i-f 27; see also Ikeda i-f 218). A video is also
taken from the windows on the opposite side of the compartment, but it is
not included on the video. Id. The Examiner further finds that Ikeda
teaches, to distribute the video image taken from the opposite side, an update
kit is generated and provided to the user that "includes a play list (edit
decision list), stream management information, and AV streams (media
effects set). Id. (citing Ikeda i-f 27, see also Ikeda i-fi-1227-228). The
Examiner further finds that "the media effects set is the additional video that
provides an alternate view for the user" and that, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term "media effects set" includes the video
images of the view from the opposite side of the compartment because it
alters the original video." Id. Further, the Examiner explains the reasons for
finding the playlist, which is included in the update kit, teaches the claimed
"edit decision list," as follows:
Furthermore, Ikeda et al. discloses in paragraph [0231] that the
playlist information included in the update kit is path
information for treating the multi-angle section recorded on the
BD-ROM and the AV stream in the HD as one playlist. Figure
5
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
34 discloses how the playlist information is used to distinguish
when to switch from one angle to another, thereby acting as an
edit decision list which would tell you the in- and out-points of
a video stream and which clips/angles are to be viewed and
when (paragraph [0233] and [0234]). Therefore, Ikeda et al.
discloses both concepts of having a media effects set and an
edit decision list to alter the original video stream.
Id. at 31-32.
Appellants have failed to provide persuasive evidence or reasoning to
rebut the Examiner's findings. Appellants incorrectly argue the Examiner
"asserts that Ikeda's 'stream management information' and 'AV streams'
correspond to the 'media effects set' recited in claim. See Br. 17. As
discussed supra, in both the Final Office Action and the Answer, the
Examiner only relies on Ikeda's teaching of the AV stream (the video that
provides an alternate view for the user) as the "media effects set."
Appellants further argue (1) the AV stream comprises one or more ACCESS
UNITs, each of which includes a group of pictures and audio frames to be
read at the same time (Br. 19 (citing Ikeda i-f 119)) and (2) the stream
management information includes a TMAP (attribute information), such as
compression format, resolution, aspect ratio, and frame rate, and an
ILVUMAP (Br. 19-20 (citing Ikeda i-fi-1122-125, 255)). These arguments
are unpersuasive, however, as they fail to address the content of the AV
stream that the Examiner finds constitutes the "media effects set" and
concern irrelevant technical details relating to the stream management
information, as well as the AV stream. Regarding the Examiner's findings
that the playlist of Ikeda teaches the claimed "edit decision list," Appellants'
arguments that the playlist simply multiplexes between different AV streams
6
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
during playback and does not include a list of media effects (see Br. 21) is
unpersuasive because, as discussed, the Examiner finds that the AV stream
of the additional video included in the play list is the "media effects set."
Thus, for the reasons stated by the Examiner, we agree with the
Examiner's findings that Ikeda discloses both concepts of having a media
effects set and an edit decision list to alter the original video stream and
adopt them as our own. We also agree with and adopt the Examiner's
conclusion that the broadest reasonable construction of the claim term
"media effects set" includes the AV stream of video providing an alternate
view for the user because the Specification does not provide a special,
limiting definition of the term, but merely provides examples, such as
"effects," which is broad enough to include video effects from a different
angle or perspective for the user.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner;s
rejection of independent claims 9, 10, 18, 21, and 22, which are argued
together with claim 1. See App. Br. 22-23. We further sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4---6, 8, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-
20, which are not argued separately and depend variously from claims 1 and
10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In regard to claims 3 and 7, and claims 12 and 16, which depend from
claims 1 and 10, respectively, Appellants argue the rejections of these claims
are improper "because they are based on an erroneous evaluation of the
scope of the prior art that disregards notable differences between the claims
and cited references." Br. 23-24. This amounts to no more than reciting the
claim language and alleging the cited prior art references are deficient,
7
Appeal2015-005402
Application 11/706,040
which do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.").
Appellants also argue Haot, Kauffman, Beauregard, and Hegde do
not, individually or in combination, remedy the deficiencies of Ikeda with
respect to independent claims 1 and 11, from which claims 3, 7, 12, and 16
depend. Br. 24. We are not persuaded by this argument because, for the
reasons stated supra, there are no such deficiencies in Ikeda with respect to
the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 7, 12, and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8