Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

12976280 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/976,280 12/22/2010
68103 7590 01/04/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Si Heung KIM
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.
0203-0329 7158
EXAMINER
TOPGY AL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2016 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SI HEUNG KIM
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 22, 2010 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Aug. 21, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 8,
2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 9, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention is directed to allowing users to resume video
viewing with a sub set-top box (STB) through communication with a main
STB. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system providing a service for resuming video viewing at a
desired point in time in a sub Set-Top Box (STB), the system
compnsmg:
a memory module comprising limited available storage
capacity;
a network interface module performing network
communication;
an index processor module receiving an index file
comprising running location in time of respective frames in a
video, from a main STB, via the network interface module, and
requesting corresponding frames from the main STB, based on
the running location in time of the received index file,
according to the available storage capacity of the sub STB,
wherein the main STB stores a file of the video forming
content; and
a playback module playing back the received frames via
the video,
wherein the sub S TB differs from the main S TB that
stores corresponding content.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Donovan et al. (US 2007/0178884 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007). Final Act. 3-9.
R2. Claims 17-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Donovan and Kalmanje et al. (US 7,890,599 B2, iss. Feb. 15, 2011). Final
Act. 9-10.
2
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
ANALYSIS
Grouping of Claims
Appellant grouped independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, and 14 together in
making arguments against the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 (App. Br. 4).
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of any dependent claims
(App. Br. 7). Accordingly, our analysis regarding the issues presented by
Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 1 applies to all claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
Issue 1: Running Location in Time of Respective Frames of a Video
Appellant argues the Examiner unreasonably interpreted Donovan's
entire playback time of a video as the claimed "running location in time of
respective frames in a video." App. Br. 4--5 citing Donovan i-f 48. Appellant
argues one of ordinary skill would recognize a frame is one of many images
that form a moving picture and that running time of an entire video could not
be reasonably interpreted as disclosing the claimed limitation.
We agree with the Examiner this limitation is disclosed by Donovan.
We first note that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There is no definition in the Specification
stating what is meant by the claimed phrase, and, in the argument, Appellant
offers none. Accordingly, it is proper to apply the plain meaning of the
claimed terminology when interpreting the claims.
The Examiner indicates the claimed limitation is disclosed in
Donovan, paragraphs 48 and 49, which show graphical user interfaces 610,
620 of televisions 540 and 581 hosted by home multimedia server 529 and
thin client STB 578. The graphical user interfaces 610, 620 show content
3
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
recorded on DVR 531 including title, date recorded, and program length.
Ans. 10-11. According to the Examiner, the program length at least
identifies the start time and the end time for the first and last video frames.
Id. We agree with the Examiner and sustain the rejection on this ground. 3 4
Issue 2: Requesting Corresponding Frames from the Main STE according to
the Available Storage Capacity of the Sub STE
Appellant argues Donovan fails to disclose the claimed "requesting
corresponding frames from the main STB ... according to the available
storage capacity of the sub STB." App. Br. 5---6. The Examiner cites to
Donovan, paragraph 46, which states:
Thin client STB is an example of a class of STBs that feature
basic functionality, usually enough to handle common EPG
[electronic program guide] and VOD/PPV [video-on-
demand/pay-per-view] functions. Such devices tend to have
lower powered central processing units and less random access
memory than thick client STBs such as multimedia server 529
above. Thin client STB 578 is, however, configured with
sufficient resources to host a user interface that enables a user
to browse, select, and play content stored on DVR 531 in
multimedia server 529.
Thus, Donovan's thin client STB has limited memory but has the ability to
play content stored on the DVR 531 in the multimedia server 529.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner's
finding that paragraph 46 discloses the thin client STB requests frames for
3 In the event of further prosecution, Appellant and the Examiner are advised
to consider that elapsed time and total play time have long been indicated in
video playback systems.
4 It is also well-known that the frames of a video are played at set intervals
of time during normal play mode or certain trick modes (e.g., fast forward,
fast reverse), so each frame can be viewed as playing at some multiple of the
set interval from the first frame of the video.
4
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
playback according to its available storage capacity. 5 Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 3: Requesting Corresponding Frames
Appellant argues "Donovan simply teaches displaying in a thin client
STB 578 or sub-STB a GUI which includes the title, recording date and
length of programs stored on the main STB and allowing a user to reproduce
the same at the remote television 581." App. Br. 7. Appellant argues, even
assuming that the creation of the GUI by the DVR 531 was equivalent to the
claimed "index file" and the length of the recorded program was equivalent
to the claimed "running times," these running times are of the entire video,
not of respective frames in a video. Id.
This argument overlaps substantially with that raised with respect to
Issue 1. We agree with the Examiner that a pro gram run time identifies, or
provides correspondence to, at least the first and last frames of video, and
thus discloses the claimed limitation. See Ans. 12.
T'lo • • f""11 • Kemaznzng ctazms
No separate arguments are raised for the remaining dependent claims.
Therefore, for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims, we
sustain the rejection of the dependent claims. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In the case of claims 17 and 18, no arguments
were presented that any differences between the claims and the cited
references are such as would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
5 If there is further prosecution in this case, we suggest Appellant and the
Examiner consider whether flow control in transport control protocol (TCP)
(see Spec. i-f 74) takes into account the amount of buffer memory available at
the receiver when transferring information.
5
Appeal2014-002706
Application 12/976,280
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Donovan is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Donovan and Kalmanje 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
6