Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

13499008 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/499,008 03/29/2012
47795 7590 10/12/2016
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian D. Johnson
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.2187US (P29926) 2647
EXAMINER
POTTS,RYANP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAND. JOHNSON, MICHAEL J. PAYNE,
DAVID B. ANDERSEN, SURI B. MEDAPATI, MICHAEL J. ESPIG,
CORY J. BOOTH, KEVIN J. MURPHY, SHARAD K. GARG, and
BARRY O'MAHONY
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 15, 17, 20-23, 25-29, 31, 33-36, 38--41, and 43-50,
which are all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-14, 16, 18, 19, 24, 30, 32, 37, 42, and 51-64 have been canceled.
September 3, 2014 Response After Final Act. 2-5.
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to accessing Internet information
related to digital media content. Abstract. Claims 15, 39, and 45 are
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and read as follows:
15. A method comprising:
collecting, using a computer, first information from a
control data zone of an optical disk; and
automatically using that information to search the
Internet for second information related to the first information.
39. A method comprising:
receiving a digital media content file on a computer;
receiving a user selection on a computer of a displayed
object within said media file;
determining, on a computer, a location of that object
within a video frame using an x,y grid;
using the location of the object within the frame to
identify the object; and
automatically generating an Internet search for
information about the displayed object.
45. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
instructions that are executed by a computer to:
receive a digital media content file;
receive a user selection of an object depicted in said
media file;
obtain a code associated with the object;
obtain information about said object based on said code;
and
2
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
automatically generate an Internet search for information
about the object.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 39--41, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tedesco (US 2008/0109405 Al; May 8, 2008). Ans. 2.
Claims 15, 17, 20-23, 26-28, and 33-36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedesco and Town
(US 2010/0061221 Al; Mar. 11, 2010). Ans. 2. The Examiner adds
Gonzalez (US 2007/0005795 Al; Jan. 4, 2007) to reject claim 31; Mozer
(US 2002/0194003 Al; Dec. 19, 2002) to reject claims 25, 37, and 38; and
Adolph (US 2005/0005289 Al; Jan. 6, 2005) to reject claim 29. Ans. 2.
The Examiner adds Yoshikawa (US 2003/0048671 Al; Mar. 13,
2003) to Tedesco to reject claims 45-50. Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
3
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
Claim 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 because
Town does not teach or suggest using information in a control data zone to
initiate a search and Tedesco "teaches away" by disclosing marking an area
to initiate a search. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue Tedesco teaches pre-
configuring the media to enable information to be located to initiate a search,
which is different than the claimed control data zone at a known location
within a file. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Tedesco teaches incorporating metadata into a separate
file associated with a media object and using that metadata to initiate a
search. Ans. 3--4 (citing Tedesco iii! 20, 23). The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Town teaches using a control data zone of an optical disc to describe
its contents. Ans. 4 (citing Town iJ 5). As found by the Examiner, an
ordinarily skilled artisan \"1ould have been motivated to combine Tedesco
and Town to use the disc's control data zone (as taught by Town) to store
metadata used to initiate a search (as taught by Tedesco) because Town's
control data has the same function as Tedesco's metadata. Id.
Appellants' argument that Tedesco "teaches away" is unpersuasive
because Tedesco teaches initiating a search with local information, which is
similar to the method taught by Town. Moreover, Appellants have not
identified any teaching by Tedesco that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
4
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed."). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 39
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 because
Tedesco does not disclose using an "x,y grid" to determine an object's
location and using the location to "identify the object," as recited in claim
39. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue Tedesco discloses a cursor
click on a spot in a scene initiates a search, but the examination of the scene
to identify the object uses edge analysis or other pattern recognition. Id.
The Examiner finds Tedesco discloses a user clicking a mouse on a point in
a scene to initiate a search for the object on which the user clicks. Ans. 3
(citing Tedesco ii 27).
Claim 39 recites "determining, on a computer, a location of [a
displayed] object vvithin a video frame using an x,y grid" and "using the
location of the object within the frame to identify the object." Claim 39 does
not recite how the location of the object is used to identify the object. We
agree with the Examiner that Tedesco discloses "using the location of the
object within the frame to identify the object" by disclosing the user
identifying an object on a screen-which inherently includes an x,y grid of
pixels, a point Appellants do not contest (App. Br. 8)-to initiate a search.
Ans. 3 (citing Tedesco ii 27). Although Tedesco teaches using edge analysis
or pattern recognition to identify the object, these analyses would not be
possible without the user identifying the object to be searched by clicking on
the screen. Thus, the location of the object is used along with other analysis
5
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
tools to identify the object. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
39.
Claim 45
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45 because
neither Tedesco nor Yoshikawa teach or suggest obtaining a code associated
with an object and obtaining information based on that code. App. Br. 9. In
particular, Appellants argue Yoshikawa teaches index information in a lead-
in area of a disc, where the index information includes a start time, end time,
and weather information. Id. (citing Yoshikawa ii 246). Appellants argue
this index information is not "code associated with any particular object."
Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Yoshikawa teaches index information about video
content that may be stored in the lead-in area of a disc. Ans. 5 (citing
Y oshikav;a ii 246). The Examiner finds, and \Ve agree, Yoshikawa' s index
satisfies the "code" limitation because an index is a system of symbols
substituted for other symbols. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument because Appellants fail to identify an error in the Examiner's
reasonmg.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 as
unpatentable over Tedesco and Town. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 15. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 17, 20-23, 26-29, 31,
and 33-36 for the same reasons as claim 15. See App. Br. 8-9.
6
Appeal2015-005515
Application 13/499,008
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 17, 20-23, 26-29, 31, and
33-36 for the same reason as set forth above.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 as
anticipated by Tedesco. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 39. We
also sustain the rejections of claims 40, 41, 43, and 44, which were not
argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 8.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45 as
unpatentable over Tedesco and Yoshikawa. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 45. We also sustain the rejections of claims 46-50, which
were not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 9.
DECISION
\Ve affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15, 17, 20-23,
25-29, 31, 33-36, 38--41, and 43-50.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7