Ex Parte Candelore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2018

14461385 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2018)

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.
14/461,385 08/16/2014 Brant Candelore 201304958.01 9885
36738 7590 02/27/2018
ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS
EXAMINER
4420 Hotel Circle Court ASANBAYEV, OLEG
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2018 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANT CANDELORE
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,3851
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18. See App. Br.
12-16; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Sony Corp., which is the applicant, is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2; Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application discloses “information is sent about each scene in a
video” in order to “improve cognitive comprehension of plots in videos and
thus assist not only people with cognitive issues but also inattentive people
that have trouble following along with the plot.” Abstract. Claims 1, 7, and
13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases
added):
1. A device comprising:
at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal
and that comprises instructions executable by at least one
processor for:
receiving content with plural scenes:
receiving overall plot information pertaining to the
content in its entirety;
for a current scene in the plural scenes, receiving
first plot information relating only to the current scene;
for a second scene different from the current scene
in the plural scenes, receiving second plot information relating to
the second scene, the first plot information being different from
the second plot information;
responsive to receiving input of a first
predetermined command during presentation of the current
scene, presenting the overall plot information pertaining to the
content in its entirety;
responsive to receiving input of a second
predetermined command during presentation of the current
scene, presenting the first plot information with the current
scene; and
responsive to receiving input of the second
predetermined command during presentation of the second
scene, presenting the second plot information with the second
scene
2
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Haberman
Franklin
Hutter
Stathacopoulos
US 2005/0228806 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
US 2005/0278734 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
US 7,020,889 B1 Mar. 28, 2006
US 2015/0245101 A1 Aug. 27,2015
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Rl: Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. App. Br. 2.
R2: Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Franklin and Haberman. Final Act. 3.
R3: Claims 4-10, 12-15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, Haberman, and Hutter. Final
Act. 6-13.
R4: Claims 7 and 13 stand additionally2 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Haberman and Stathacopoulos. Final Act.
13.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Any arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
2 We note the MPEP provides the rejection should not “cite all references
that may be available, but only the ‘best.’ (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).)
Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than,
the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore
be avoided.” MPEP § 904.03.
3
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
make in the Briefs3 are deemed to be waived. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review . . . uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding claim 1 does not
comply with the written description requirement. We are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding the claims are obvious in view of the cited
references; we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions therein as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Rejection Rl: Written Description
Appellant argues the rejection includes “clear reversible error that
‘receiving first plot information related only to the current scene’ lacks
written description,” (App. Br. 4) because “the skilled artisan would have
ample evidence in the specification to reasonably conclude that the inventor
had possession of the claimed invention at the time the invention was filed”
(App. Br. 6, quotations omitted). Appellant states, for example, the
Specification “describes that ‘for each different scene of content, if desired,
plot information related to that respective scene can be presented on the
display,’” which “means that Appellant clearly described that for each scene,
plot information for that scene can be presented, unmistakably signaling to
the skilled artisan that information related ‘only’ to each respective scene
can be provided.” App. Br. 4-5 (quoting Spec. 14).
3 Separately, we note Appellant’s Appeal Brief does not permit the direct
reproduction of readily legible copies. See 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a)(l)(iv) and 37
C.F.R. 1.52(a)(l)(v). Appellants’ Reply Brief does not display the same
deficiencies.
4
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
We agree with Appellants that the Specification’s disclosure of “plot
information related to [each different] respective scene” constitutes the
recited “plot information relating only to the current scene,” because the
current scene will be one of the each different scenes of the program.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Specification provides sufficient support
for the limitations of claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
B. Rejection R2: Obviousness
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Franklin and Haberman
teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, because Franklin “leads away
from [cjlaim 1 by precluding a user from receiving information pertaining to
the current scene.” Reply Br. 3. Particularly, Appellant contends the
Examiner’s claim construction, in which the Examiner finds “the claim
permits the plot information to relate to prior scenes that happened up to the
current scene” (as taught by Franklin), is contradicted by the claim language
at issue, which “says the plot information relates only to the current scene.”
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. During prosecution, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
Specification, as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, Appellant’s Specification provides the following description of the
claimed plot information:
plot information 108 specific to the scene being shown, as
opposed to the entire program, is presented.
5
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
The plot information 108 may thus summarize events that have
occurred in the program thus far (i.e., up to the current scene) but
will not “spoil” the program by mentioning events that occur in
later scenes. Thus, the plot information 108 is not simply a
generalized summary of the entire program but rather a specific
clue pertaining to the scene being shown to help a viewer better
follow what is unfolding in the program. Also unlike a
generalized summary of the entire program, which remains static
throughout the program, the plot information 108 changes from
one scene to the next during the program.
Spec. 14 (emphases added). Consistent with the Specification, we agree
with the Examiner that the recited “plot information relating only to the
current scene” reasonably comprises plot information that informs a viewer
of the plot up to the current scene. See Ans. 9, 11. Such plot information is
“relating only to” the current scene in that it provides a specific clue
pertaining to the scene being shown to help a viewer better follow what is
unfolding in the program.
Franklin, similar to the claimed device, “provides a synopsis/backdrop
of the events that have occurred thus far in the program.” Ans. 8; see also
Franklin Fig. 5, ^ 5. Thus, we are not persuaded the reference teaches away
from the claim as Franklin does not lead in a divergent direction from the
path taken by the Appellant. See App. Br. 7-8; Ans. 8-9; see also Ricoh
Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”). Nor are we
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Franklin reasonably teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 10; Franklin 28, 31-33.
6
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1.
C. Rejection R3: Obviousness
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Franklin, Haberman,
and Hutter teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims 7 and 13,
because “these claims explicitly recite that the presented information is
‘describing what is happening in a currently playing scene’” and thus the
Examiner’s rationale with respect to independent claim 1 cannot apply to
claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings,
and thus are not persuasive of error. Particularly, Appellant overlooks that
the Examiner finds Franklin’s “description provided to the viewer does
apply to the action in the currently playing scene because at least some of
the time segments will be from the currently playing scene, based on the
segments being divided by time as in Fig. 4.” Ans. 13; see also Final Act.
10, 22. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable, because Franklin discloses
“dividing] the transcript into segments .... [which] can be arbitrary,” and
one “segment division could be time as shown in FIG. 4” whereas “[ajnother
segment division could be based on the scenes in the program.” Franklin
^[31. When Franklin’s segments are based on time rather than scenes of the
program, some scenes will overlap (i.e., be included in) two or more
segments. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that
Franklin’s description of a prior segment, which includes a scene
overlapping the current segment, will describe what is happening in the
current (and overlapping) scene. See Ans. 13.
7
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
Appellant does not show the Examiner errs in finding Franklin teaches
or suggests “describing what is happening in the currently playing scene,” as
recited in claim 7 or the limitations similarly recited by claim 13.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Franklin, in
combination with the other cited references, teaches or suggests the
limitations of claims 7 and 13.
D. Rejection R4: Obviousness
The Examiner additionally finds the combination of Haberman and
Stathacopoulos teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 7
and 13. Appellant does not discuss or otherwise present arguments for this
rejection. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection.4 Cf.
Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may
treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as
waived).
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of
claim 1. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13. Appellants advance no further argument on the
4 We note the Examiner relies on Stathacopoulos for teaching “presenting on
a display text describing what is happening in a currently playing scene.”
Final Act. 14; Stathacopoulos 25, 31. In the event of further prosecution,
the Examiner may wish to consider whether Stathacopoulos, alone or in
combination with other references, renders obvious the limitations of claim
1. Although the Board has discretion to enter a new ground of rejection for
issues not before us (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)), no inference should be
drawn when we decline to exercise that discretion.
8
Appeal 2016-007680
Application 14/461,385
dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is
reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
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
9