Ex Parte Gotcher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12616946 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/616,946 11112/2009
25310 7590 09/02/2016
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P,C
DEPT. AMD
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael C. Gotcher
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.
AMD-TT6450-US-NP 3656
EXAMINER
NG, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL C. GOTCHER and RAYMOND F. DUMBECK
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,9461
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 under appeal,
with argued limitations emphasized and bracketed lettering added, read as
follows:
1. A method for simultaneously accessing an application
and viewing motion video comprising:
[A J generating a media navigation screen presentation
comprising a primary presentation portion and a multimedia
portion, the primary presentation portion enabling access to an
application, the multimedia portion presenting a plurality of
motion videos within a three dimensional analog simultaneous
with access to the application;
[BJ generating an available resource value
corresponding to system resources available to present the
plurality of motion videos;
[CJ generating a required resource value
corresponding to system resources required to present
individual motion videos;
[DJ processing the ai1ailable resoitrce -valite and one or
more required resource values to generate a consumed
resource value, the consumed resource value used to limit how
many of the plurality of motion videos are presented and not
exceeding the available resource value.
4. The method of claim 3 further comprising:
[EJ presenting the ring of motion video thumbnails in
an off axis orientation, the off axis orientation enabling at least
part of a rear portion of the ring of motion video thumbnails to
be visible within the primary presentation portion, the rear
portion of the ring of motion video thumbnails presenting a
backwards orientation of the motion video thumbnails.
2
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
The Examiner's Rejections
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Vaysman (US 2007 /0011702
Al; issued Jan. 11, 2007) and Barkley (US 2008/0068446 Al; published
Mar. 20, 2008.2 Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3--4.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3-5, 9-11, and 15-17 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Vaysman, Barkley, and Ni
(US 2006/0274060 Al; published Dec. 7, 2006). 3 Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 4.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
3--4 of the Answer. This includes the Examiner's reliance upon (i) Barkley's
paragraphs 23 and 70 as teaching or suggesting calculating a consumed
resource value for video streams and adjusting display parameters (e.g.,
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18, and
Appellants present arguments only to independent claim 1 (see Br. 4---6).
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 each recite similar features related to
methods and a system for navigating and/or accessing media data including
using available and required resource values to determine a consumed
resource value which is used to limit motion video presentation so as not to
exceed the available resource value. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative for the group of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 rejected over
the combination of Vaysman and Barkley.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 5, 9-11, and 15-17, and
Appellants present arguments only to dependent claim 4 (see Br. 5-6).
Dependent claims 3-5, 9-11, and 15-17 each recite similar features related
to methods and a system for presenting plural motion videos using "a ring of
motion video thumbnails" (see e.g., claim 4). Accordingly, we select
dependent claim 4 as representative for the group of dependent claims 3-5,
9-11, and 15-17 rejected over the combination of Vaysman, Barkley, and
Ni.
3
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
resolution and quality) and limiting the number of videos displayed based on
constraints of the system such as bandwidth (i.e., available resources) as
recited in claim 1 (see Ans. 3--4); (ii) Ni's paragraph 67 as teaching
presenting plural motion videos using a ring of motion video thumbnails as
recited in claim 4 (Ans. 4); and (iii) what would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the finite number of predictable solutions
to displaying thumbnails through open spaces and/or displaying a thumbnail
in the rear portion of the ring of motion thumbnail videos (one solution
being to display the thumbnails in a "backwards orientation" as recited in
claim 4, and the other solution being to display the thumbnails in a forward
orientation) (Ans. 4).
Principal Issues on Appeal
Appellants generally assert that (i) "nowhere within the cited portions
of Barkley (or anywhere else in Barkley) is there any disclosure or
suggestion" of limitations" [B]; [C]; and [DJ of claim 1 (Br. 5); and (ii) none
of the references teach or suggest limitation [EJ of claim 4 (Br. 5---6). Based
on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 4--6), the following
principal issues are presented on appeal:
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 as being obvious over the base combination
of Vaysman and Barkley because the combination of references, and
specifically Barkley, fails to teach or suggest limitations [BJ, [CJ, and/or [DJ
recited in representative independent claim 1?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3-5, 9-11, and 15-17 as being obvious over the combination of
Vaysman, Barkley, and Ni because the combination of references, and
4
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
specifically Ni, taken with the knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill in
the art (as to the finite number of predictable solutions to displaying
thumbnails through open spaces and/or displaying a thumbnail in the rear
portion of the ring of motion thumbnail videos), fails to teach or suggest
limitation [EJ recited in representative dependent claim 4?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Rej. 2-9; Ans. 3-
4) in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner
has erred (Br. 4---6). We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. With regard
to representative claims 1 and 4, we adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-3 and 8, respectively), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3--4 and 4, respectively) in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner as to both obviousness rejections.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner relies upon (i) paragraphs 58, 81,
and 140 (see Final Act. 3) as teaching limitations [BJ, [CJ, and [DJ of
independent claim 1; and (ii) paragraph 67 of Ni along with what would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the finite
number of predictable solutions to making a rear portion of the ring of
motion thumbnail videos (see Final Act. 8) as teaching or suggesting
limitation [EJ of dependent claim 4. Regarding the Examiner's findings as
to claim 1, although Barkley's (i) paragraph 81 discloses adjusting resolution
based on bandwidth and available resource constraints; and (ii) paragraph
140 discloses an adaptive scheduling technique that determines the number
5
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
of video layers that are transmittable/receivable based on available
bandwidth, these portions of Barkley do not fully teach or suggest
limitations [BJ, [CJ, and [DJ of independent claim 1 on their own. However,
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3--4) that Barkley's paragraphs 23 and 70
(newly cited in the Answer with respect to limitations [BJ, [CJ, and [DJ of
independent claim 1) taken with the originally cited portions of Barkley
teach or suggest limitations [BJ, [CJ, and [DJ of independent claim 1.
Regarding the Examiner's findings and conclusions as to claim 4, we
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 8; Ans. 4) that Ni's disclosure (Ni, i-f 67)
of presenting plural motion videos using a ring of motion video thumbnails,
along with what would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
in view of the finite number of predictable solutions to making a rear portion
of the ring of motion thumbnail videos (one being to display the thumbnails
in a "backwards orientation" as recited in claim 4, and the other being to
display the thumbnails in a forward orientation), would have taught or
suggested limitation [EJ of claim 4.
As to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4, we find Appellants
have not separately argued the limitations with particularity. Instead,
Appellants (i) repeat the language of the claims (e.g., limitations [BJ, [CJ,
and [DJ of claim 1 - upon which the Examiner relies on Barkley as teaching
or suggesting; and limitation [EJ of claim 4 - upon which the Examiner
relies up Ni as teaching or suggesting); (ii) repeat the cited portion of the
prior art relied upon (e.g., Barkley or Ni); and (iii) assert the prior art (either
Barkley or Ni) does not disclose the invention of the limitations at issue (see
Br. 4---6). Such conclusions are not considered a separate argument for
patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule
6
Appeal2013-008543
Application 12/616,946
41.37 requires "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"). "A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Thus, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments
and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the base combination of Vaysman and Barkley.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3-5, 9-11, and 15-17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Vaysman, Barkley, and Ni.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7