Ex Parte Cary et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

13232117 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/232, 117 09/14/2011
110936 7590 10/21/2016
Great Lakes Intellectual Property, PLLC /CableLabs
44750 Yorkshire
Novi, MI 48375
Judson D. Cary
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.
CTL 60270 PUS I 60270 8025
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2016 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):
j. buser@ greatlakesiplaw. com
d.smith@cablelabs.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUDSON D. CARY, FRANK SANDOVAL,
DAVIDE. AGRANOFF, DAVIDK. BROBERG, and
STEPHEN G. GLENNON
Appeal 2015-00417 4
Application 13/232, 117
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a fmal
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
STATE1\llhN1 OF Tl-lli CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "modifying an original content
form, such as by allowing a user to specify modification actions to be
implemented during play of the original content form." Spec. ,-r 1.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A method of modifying play of an original content form,
the original content form being embodied in a plurality of frames,
the frames facilitating audio and moving images during play, the
method comprising:
determining a unique ID for the original content form;
determining one or more temporal offsets for the original
content form;
determining one or more modification actions to be
implemented at the one or more temporal offsets;
associating the one or more temporal offsets and the one
or more modification actions with the unique ID determined for
the originai content form;
transmitting an edit script to a terminal transmitted the
original content form for play, the edit script detailing the one or
more temporal offsets and the one or more modification actions
associated with the unique ID; and
facilitating implementation of the edit script at the
terminal during play of the original content form, the one or more
modification actions causing the terminal to modifj; play of the
original content form such that audio and/or images included in
the frames transmitted to the terminal as part of the original
content form are subsequently modified by the terminal during
play pursuant to the one or more modification actions.
2
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
References and Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sull (US 2005/0193425 Al; Sept. 1, 2005).
Final Act. 9.
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sull and Ito (US 8,081,870 B2; Dec. 20, 2011). Final Act.
12.
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sull and Augenbraun (US 2002/0049971 Al; Apr. 25,
2002). Final Act. 13.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sull, Augenbraun, Teshima (US 6,750,830 Bl; June 15,
2004), and Ito. Final Act. 14.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sull, Augenbraun, and Ito. Final Act. 16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. Except as indicated below with respect
to dependent claim 8, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred
and adopt as our own the fmdings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken, the Advisory Action, and the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight and address specific fmdings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
A. Independent Claim i
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because "the Sull reference fails to teach modifying audio and/or images in
frames from the original form in which the frames were previously
received," as required by the claim. Br. 5. Particularly, Appellants contend
"the Sull reference simply relates to delivering segment information and its
presentation. The segment information is not taught as being used to modify
play of audio and/or video included in received frames" (Br. 8), because
"there is no disclosure or suggestion in the Sull reference to indicate the
'segments' are audio/video" (Br. 12).
As an initial matter, we give claims their broadestreasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants' Specification states
modifications can "adjust play of the content," and "modifications may also
include: ... adding personal comments to the content, such as by inserting
video clips or textural overlays in pop-up windows or bubbles; associating
applications for execution at certain points within the content, e.g., to
facilitate implementing insertion of dynamic advertisement applications."
Spec. ,-r 11; see also Spec. ,-r 17. We agree with the Examiner that Sull
reasonably discloses "modification actions" to modify audio and/or images
in the transmitted frames as claimed, because Sull describes methods to add
or delete "segments" using segmentation information. See Final Act. 9-10;
see also Sull ,-r 314 ("since the command_ mode 603 is 'A', it indicates the
segments in the current descriptor 602 should be added/modified to the
receiving DVR"); ,-r 319 ("FIG. 6D illustrates a similar example of the
4
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
process of deieting a segment"). Appellants' argument that there is "no
disclosure or suggestion in the Sull reference to indicate the 'segments' are
audio/video" (Br. 12) is unpersuasive, because Sull discloses "[a] segment is
a set of continuous frames or subsets within a video or program or content."
Sull ,-r 273; see also Ans. 19-20.
In the Answer, the Examiner additionally fmds the disputed
limitations encompass Sull' s disclosure of selecting and adding
advertisements to a program. See Ans. 21-22 (citing Sull Fig. 11, ,-r,-r 353,
357). Appellants do not persuasively challenge this fmding. Further, we
note Sull describes modifying content by adding overlay information. See
Sull ,-r 415 ("Ifthe viewer wants to retrieve the frame-associated information,
they can view it using a user interface such as a dedicated button (on the
remote) .... Then, the information processing unit may display or overlay
the list of items in the frame-associated information.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in fmding Sull
discloses the limitations recited by independent claim 1, and the limitations
similarly1 recited by independent claims 11 and 16. See Br. 19-22. Forthe
same reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in fmding Sull
discloses the limitations recited by dependent claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, and 20.
See Br. 15, 16, 21, 26, and 27; see also Ans. 22-24, 28, 29, and 31.
1 We note claim 16 broadly recites "content" rather than audio and/or images
as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
B. Independent Claim ii
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants additionally argue that
the cited references "further fail to suggest or disclose the limitations of
claim 11 directed towards generating the frrst and second edit scripts." Br.
22-23. Particularly, Appellants contend the recited "user-based generation
of edit scripts' during play' addresses one aspect of the present invention for
enabling a social networking scenario" (Br. 23, citing Spec. ,-r 12), and "[t]he
Sull reference fails to teach th[ e] nexus of social networking and modified
content play" (Br. 24, citing Spec. ,-r 27).
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
11: claim 11 does not recite "social networking." Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are
not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in fmding the
combination of Sull and Augenbraun teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 11. See Ans. 29-30; see also Sull ,-r 395; Augenbraun ,-r,-r 10-11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 11.
C. Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 depends ultimately from independent claim 1, and further
recites "preventing implementation of modification actions assigned
preference categories in conflict with the preferred preference categories."
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 8, because
"the Sull reference fails to sufficiently teach controlling the 'segment'
manipulations depending on whether the corresponding manipulations are
6
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
'in conflict' with a user's preference categories as recited in ciaim 8." Br.
18.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner fmds
Sull's overlapping segments teach the recited conflict (See Ans. 24, citing
Sull ,-r 319); however, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Sull discloses
preventing implementation of modification actions based on an "overlap"
(i.e., conflict), or that Sull describes preference categories having an
overlap. Further, we do not fmd the limitations of claim 8 taught or
suggested by the remaining references. Accordingly, based on the record
before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 8.
D. Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites "implementing the one or
more modification actions such that only the non-advertisement frames are
modified during play." Appellants argue the Examiner erred in fmding Sull
anticipates claim 10, because"[t]he Sullreference, importantly, fails to teach
how the searched for video would be modified when played, let alone that
the modification would be limited to 'non-advertisement frames' as recited."
Br. 19. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1, as Sull describes modifying "segments" that
include non-advertisement frames. See Ans. 25-26 (citing Sull Figs. 6A,
6B, ,-r,-r 303, 314). Separately, we note claim 10 recites "non-advertisement
frames are modified," and such modification includes insertion of video
clips and advertisements. See Spec. ,-r 11. We fmd claim 10 encompasses
Sull's disclosure of inserting advertisement frames into non-advertisement
7
Appeal 2015-004174
Application 13/232, 117
frames. See Sull i1353. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 10.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 8;
however, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 11,
and 16, and dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 20. Appellants advance
no further argument on the remaining dependent claims. See Br. 4--27.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F .R. §41.37( c )(1 )(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-20 is affrrmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 8 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
8