Ex Parte Lambert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

14349755 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/349,755 04/04/2014
24498 7590 03/21/2018
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anne Lambert
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.
PFl 10084 9068
EXAMINER
IMPERIAL, JAYCEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNE LAMBERT, IZABELA ORLAC, and
LOUIS CHEV ALLIER
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 15, 17-28, and 31--41. Claims 1-14, 16, 29, and 30 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to providing information for a
multimedia content item from a catalog of multimedia content items to a
user with the capability of displaying intra-content and inter-content
information. (Abstract.)
Claim 15 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
15. A method for providing information for a multimedia
content item from a catalog of multimedia content items to a user, the
method comprising:
generating a sequence of concepts for the multimedia content
item using a concept graph and metadata associated with the
multimedia content item by matching the metadata associated with
the multimedia content item with vertices of the concept graph and
associating concepts associated with the vertices of the concept graph
with the metadata associated with the multimedia content item;
generating an enhanced sequence of concepts for the
multimedia content item from the sequence of concepts using an
enhanced concept graph comprising concepts derived from one or
more knowledge bases and links to related concepts or other
multimedia content items from the catalog of multimedia content
items; and
providing the enhanced sequence of concepts to a user.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 26-28, 31, 32, 34, 40, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris (US 2009/0083787
Al; Mar. 26, 2009) and Reyna (US 2012/0311638 Al; Dec. 6, 2012).
2
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
Claims 19 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris, Reyna, and Dudkiewicz (US 2002/0087979 Al;
July 4, 2002).
Claims 21 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris, Reyna, and Sansom (US 2013/0031594 Al;
Jan. 31, 2013).
Claims 22 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris, Reyna, Sansom, and Olstad (US 2008/0097970
Al; Apr. 24, 2008).
Claims 23-25 and 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris, Reyna, and Lafreniere (US 2011/0173659 Al;
July 14, 2011).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 11) that the
combination of Morris and Reyna would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 15, which includes the limitation "generating a sequence
of concepts for the multimedia content item ... by matching the metadata
associated with the multimedia content item with vertices of the concept
graph."
The Examiner found that the timeline of Morris, having various
information related to time based events, corresponds to the limitation
"generating a sequence of concepts for the multimedia content item using a
concept graph and metadata associated with the multimedia content item by
matching the metadata associated with the multimedia content item with
vertices of the concept graph." (Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4.) In
3
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
particular, the Examiner found that Morris "discloses that metadata would be
used for descriptions and sorting the events into categories" and
"[ d]epending on what the metadata says, it may match that information to a
category of the timeline." (Final Act. 3.) We agree with the Examiner's
findings.
Morris relates to "a pivotable events timeline [that] can include event
indicators of events associated with television media content" (Abstract) for
use in electronic programing guides (i-f l). Morris explains that "[a] typical
program or movie description ... provides a short plot description, rating
information, a list of some cast members, or other information associated
with the media content," such that "[t]he other associated information can
include metadata that is used to describe and categorize the media content."
(i-f 2.) Figure 1 of Morris illustrates system 100, including television client
device 102 and display device 104 for displaying television media content
106 and an associated pivotable events timeline 108 (i-f 15), such that
"pivotable events timeline can be implemented to provide an interface by
which a viewer can select and view metadata and other associated
information of a time-based event, television program, and/or other media
content" (i-f 16), for example, a football game as television media content
106 (i-f 18). Morris further explains that "content distributor 218 can
distribute media content 232, media content metadata 234, and/or event
related information 236 (e.g., pivotable events timeline data) to any number
of television client devices." (i-f 38.) Because Morris explains that pivotable
events timeline 108 is implemented on display device 104, such that
metadata is used to describe and categorize the media content and that such
content is distributed based upon media content metadata, Morris teaches the
4
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
limitation "generating a sequence of concepts for the multimedia content
item ... by matching the metadata associated with the multimedia content
item with vertices of the concept graph."
Appellants argue that "[p ]roviding a timeline as disclosed in Morris
does not disclose or suggest 'generating a sequence of concepts for the
multimedia content item ... by matching the metadata associated with the
multimedia content item with vertices of the concept graph' as claimed."
(Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellants argue "[i]t is clear that
the metadata in Morris provides additional information about an event" and
"the sequence of events in Morris will be the same regardless of metadata
because the sequence is a timeline and the sequence of events is based on
time." (Id.) However, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in
scope with claim 15, because the claim does not require "generating a
sequence of concepts for the multimedia content" using only "metadata
associated with the multimedia content" and excluding multimedia content
based on time.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Morris and
Reyna would have rendered obvious independent claim 15, which includes
the limitation "generating a sequence of concepts for the multimedia content
item ... by matching the metadata associated with the multimedia content
item with vertices of the concept graph."
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 12-13)
that the combination of Morris and Reyna would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 15, which includes the limitation "generating an
enhanced sequence of concepts using ... links to related concepts."
5
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
The Examiner found that the selection of "Player A" information from
a football game to initiate an alternative pivotable events timeline
corresponds to the limitation "generating an enhanced sequence of concepts
using ... links to related concepts." (Ans. 6-7.) We agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Figure 1 of Morris further illustrates "pivotable events timeline 108
[that] includes various event indicators 110(1-5) of events associated with
the football game, such as plays that result in a score." (i-f 18.) Morris
explains that "event information 120 related to an event can include an
indication as to how the points were scored (e.g., a 'pass play' or a 'run
play'), an indication of the player who threw the pass, an indication of the
player who caught the pass." (i-f 22.) Morris further explains that "a viewer
may select the 'Player A' information to initiate a pivotable events timeline
126 that includes event indicators 128, 130 from which the viewer may
select and initiate for viewing the video highlights of 'Player A' throughout
the first seven games of the football season." (i-f 24.) Because Morris
explains that in addition to pivotable events timeline 108 for a football game,
the user may initiate pivotable events timeline 126 for viewing the video
highlights of "Player A," Morris teaches the limitation "generating an
enhanced sequence of concepts using ... links to related concepts."
Appellants argue that "Morris does not disclose or suggest 'generating
an enhanced sequence of concepts ... from the sequence of concepts using
an enhanced concept graph comprising concepts derived from one or more
knowledge bases and links to related concepts or other multimedia content
items." (Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellants argue that
"paragraph [0002] of Morris refers to 'metadata that is used to describe and
6
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
categorize the media content"' but "Morris does not disclose or suggest
sorting events into categories." (Id. (emphasis omitted).) However, the
Examiner also cited to the embodiment in Figure 1 of Morris, in which the
viewer selects "Player A" information. Appellants have not presented any
persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner's findings with
respect to the Figure 1 embodiment are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Morris and
Reyna would have rendered obvious independent claim 15, which includes
the limitation "generating an enhanced sequence of concepts using ... links
to related concepts."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 17, 18, 20, 26, and 27 depend from claim 15,
and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments
with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
17, 18, 20, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons
discussed with respect to independent claim 15.
Independent claim 28 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 15, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 28, as well as dependent claims 31, 32, 34, 40, and 41, for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 15.
§ 103 Rejection-Morris, Reyna, and Dudkiewicz
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 19 and 33 separately (Br. 14--15), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
7
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "[a]s
discussed above, claims 15 and 28 patentably distinguish over the proposed
combination of Morris and Reyna" and "Dudkiewicz adds nothing regarding
the above discussed deficiencies of Morris and Reyna with respect to claims
15 and 28." (Id. at 14.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 15 and 28, from which claims 19 and
33 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Morris, Reyna, and Sansom
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 21 and 35 separately (Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "[a]s
discussed above, claims 15 and 28 patentably distinguish over the proposed
combination of Morris and Reyna" and "Sansom adds nothing regarding the
above discussed deficiencies of Morris and Reyna with respect to claims 15
and 28." (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 15 and 28, from which claims 21and35
depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Morris, Reyna, Sansom, and Olstad
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 22 and 3 6 separately (Br. 15-16), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "[a]s
discussed above, claims 15, 21, 2 8 and 3 5 paten tab ly distinguish over the
proposed combination of Morris, Reyna and Sansom" and "Olstad adds
8
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
nothing regarding the above discussed deficiencies of Morris and Reyna
with respect to claims 15 and 28." (Id. at 16.) We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 15 and 28,
from which claims 22 and 36 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Morris, Reyna, and Lafreniere
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 23-25 and 37-39 separately (Br. 16-17), the arguments presented do
not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that
"[a ]s discussed above, claims 15 and 28 patentably distinguish over the
proposed combination of Morris and Reyna" and "Lafreniere adds nothing
regarding the above discussed deficiencies of Morris and Reyna with respect
to claims 15 and 28." (Id. at 16.) Moreover, Appellants merely provide
conclusory statements that: (i) "Lafreniere in paragraph [0019] or elsewhere
does not disclose or suggest anything regarding a concept graph 'wherein the
concept graph is obtained by analyzing one or more knowledge bases' as
recited in claim 23"; (ii) "Lafreniere nor any other part of Lafreniere
discloses or suggests anything regarding 'wherein vertices of the concept
graph are derived from concepts of the one or more knowledge bases' as
recited in claim 24"; and (iii) "paragraph [0019] nor Figure 4a nor any other
part of Lafreniere discloses or suggests anything regarding 'wherein edges
of the concept graph are derived from links or cross references within the
concepts of the one or more knowledge bases' as recited in claim 25." (Id.
at 17.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments with respect to these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
9
Appeal2017-010347
Application 14/349,755
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require 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."). We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 15 and 28, from which
claims 23-25 and 37-39 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15, 17-28, and 31--41 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
10