Ex Parte Cormack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13653657 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/653,657 10/17/2012
76973 7590 05/27/2016
The Law Offices of Christopher K. Gagne
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Cormack
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.
ITL.1706ClUS (Pl7675C) 5373
EXAMINER
TRAN,QUOCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
gagnelaw@att.net
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
christopher.k.gagne@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. CORMACK and TONY MOY
Appeal2014-008505
Application 13/653,657
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008505
Application 13/653,657
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to annotating a stream of media information
with annotations that control the playback of the information in a media
device (see Spec. i-fi-1 4--8, 17). Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer executed method comprising:
rece1vmg a video sequence including video data m a
streamed file;
receiving a user annotation defining a modification to the
way the video sequence is played back, wherein the annotation
is included with the video data in the streamed file; and
enabling the annotation to be accessed during playback of
the video sequence so that, when the video sequence is played
back, the playback is modified as defined in the annotation.
16. The method of claim 1 including receiving a request for an
annotation in the form of a spoken command.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Spielberg
Zhu
Kang
US 2002/0129057 Al Sept. 12, 2002
US 2007/0022159 Al Jan. 25, 2007
US 2008/0172707 Al July 17, 2008
2
Appeal2014-008505
Application 13/653,657
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu and Kang.
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu, Kang, and Spielberg.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-15
Appellants explicitly state the rejection of claims 1-15 is not being
appealed (App. Br. 7). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-15 proforma.
Claims 16--18
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 1, Appellants contend
Spielberg does not teach "receiving a request for an annotation in the form
of a spoken command" (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants argue
Spielberg discloses selecting a button to initiate recording an annotation, in
contrast to claim 16 which recites "a spoken command" for requesting an
annotation (App. Br. 7-8). We disagree with Appellants.
In the Answer, the Examiner cites Spielberg's paragraph 46 (see Ans.
12), which describes an "embodiment of the invention contemplates the use
of voice-activated software in order to implement the functions associated
with buttons 312-316. In this embodiment, the user may annotate a
document by verbally issuing an annotations command while the document
is playing." (Spielberg, i-f 46). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12) that
Spielberg's verbal annotations command meets the claim 16 limitation of
"receiving a request for an annotation in the form of a spoken command."
3
Appeal2014-008505
Application 13/653,657
Appellants do not address the Examiner's reliance on Spielberg's paragraph
46 (see Reply Br. 1-3). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Spielberg teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Appellants also assert "Claim 1, for example, upon which dependent
claim 16 depends, calls for receiving an annotation 'defining a modification
to the way the video sequence is played back"' (App. Br. 7). Appellants
then argue, with respect to Zhu, that "there is no teaching for going from
merely making audible comments that are played back to actually converting
the audible statements into commands that are understood by the system and
then cause the playback to be altered" (App. Br. 8). This argument,
however, merely recites the limitations of claim 1 without specifically
explaining why Zhu fails to meet these limitations, and is therefore not
persuasive. Appellants' Reply Brief arguments regarding Zhu (Reply Br. 1-
3) were not raised in the Appeal Brief and Appellants have not shown good
cause as to why they should now be considered. Thus, we deem Appellants'
specific Reply Brief arguments with respect to Zhu to be waived. See 3 7
C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2) (2011) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which
was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised
in the examiner's answer ... will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.")
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 16, and claims 17 and 18 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2014-008505
Application 13/653,657
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 are
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
5