Ex Parte Legallais et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2015

12736873 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/736,873 11/18/2010 Yvon Legallais PF080053 3645
24336 7590 12/18/2015
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
LE, RONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YVON LEGALLAIS, SsTÉPHANE GOUACHE,
GUILLAUME BICHOT, and ANTHONY LAURENT
____________________

Appeal 2014-000257
Application 12/736,873
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 13–18. Claims 1–12 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

Appeal 2014-000257
Application 12/736,873

2
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a device and
method for synchronizing an interactive mark to streaming content
(Abstract). Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
13. A method, at a mark insertion device, for inserting an
interactive mark in a streaming content, said method
comprising, at said device, the steps of:

receiving a streaming content in an uncompressed format
from a first source device;

receiving said streaming content in a compressed format
from a second device and transported over RTP;

receiving from a third device an interactive mark
corresponding to a first frame of said streaming content in
the uncompressed format;

identifying a second frame of said streaming content in
the compressed format, said second frame being the one
which content corresponds to the content in said first
frame; and

sending said interactive mark in an RTP packet having a
timestamp that corresponds to the one of said second
frame.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Graham US 7,954,056 B2 May 31, 2011
Pulier US 2002/0083091 A1 Jun. 27, 2002
Appeal 2014-000257
Application 12/736,873

3
Tighe
Collins
US 2007/0110107 A1
US 2008/0090513 A1
May 17, 2007
Apr. 17, 2008

REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pulier, Graham, and Tighe (Final Act. 6–11).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pulier, Graham, Tighe, and Collins (Final Act. 12).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 13, 14, and 16–18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Pulier, Graham,
and Tighe (App. Br. 9–12). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Pulier,
Graham, and Tighe teaches or suggests “identifying a second frame of said
streaming content in the compressed format, said second frame being the
one which content corresponds to the content in said first frame,” as recited
in independent claim 13 and commensurately recited in independent claims
17 and 18?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue neither Pulier nor Graham teaches “identifying a
second frame of said streaming content in the compressed format, said
second frame being the one which content corresponds to the content in said
first frame,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 17
(App. Br. 9–12). According to Appellants, Graham does not account for the
relationship between the frames (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Appellants argue
Appeal 2014-000257
Application 12/736,873

4
the Examiner finds Graham identifies a frame from a stream, but Graham
does not identify a frame in a compressed stream that corresponds to a frame
from an uncompressed stream of the same content (id.; Reply Br. 6).
Appellants further contend Pulier does not synchronize a compressed stream
with an uncompressed version of the same stream, but instead, provides
synchronization for discrete objects (such as a text overlay) with a video nor
does Pulier’s script file associate frames of the compressed video with
frames of the uncompressed video (App. Br. 9, 11; Reply Br. 5).
We agree with Appellants. Although we find Graham teaches
thumbnail images that represent key frames that are extracted from
multimedia information found at certain intervals proximal to a current
location of the multimedia information being played in the viewing area
(Graham, 12:47–51), we are not persuaded Graham teaches or suggests a
frame of the streaming content in compressed format, has content
corresponding to content in a frame of the streaming content in
uncompressed format. Indeed, the Examiner has not shown Graham teaches
or suggests the streaming content in two different formats or any
correspondence between frames from streaming content of two different
formats. Nor has the Examiner shown Pulier or the combination of Pulier
and Graham teaches or suggests any correspondence between a frame of
compressed streaming content and a frame of uncompressed streaming
content.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pulier, Graham, and Tighe teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations as recited in independent claim 13 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 17 and 18.
Appeal 2014-000257
Application 12/736,873

5
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
the combined teachings of Pulier, Graham, and Tighe renders claims 13, 14,
and 16–18 unpatentable.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Pulier, Graham, and Tighe.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pulier, Graham, and Tighe is reversed.

REVERSED

JRG