Ex Parte Lynn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

11842711 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111842,711 08/21/2007 Owen Lynn
56436 7590 06/24/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82948148 3848
EXAMINER
BROMELL, ALEXANDRIA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OWEN LYNN, RICHARD HUMPHREY, and DALE THOMS
Appeal2015-002018
Application 11/842,711
Technology Center 2100
Before SCOTT B. HOW ARD, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'l~ll"l,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i •.,
Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s
rejection of claims 9-13, 19-24, 28-32, and 35-37, which are all the claims
pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Virage, Inc. App. Br.
1.
2 Claims 1-8, 14-18, 25-27, 33, and 34 have been cancelled. App. Br. i
(Claims Appendix).
Appeal2015-002018
Application 11/842,711
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present application relates to a guide application that
provides information about indexed video content. Abstract. Claim 30 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows with the
dispositive disputed limitation in italics:
30. A method comprising:
performing, by a system having a computer processor, a
process, the process comprising:
gathering video content from a network,
identifying plural different versions of a same video
content; and
selecting one of the plural different versions for
indexing to generate an index based on at least one
criterion, wherein the at least one criterion is selected
from the group consisting of a criterion specifying that a
particular format of video content is to be selected from
plural candidate formats, and a criterion spec(J'j'ing that a
particular bit rate of video content is to be selected from
plural candidate bit rates; [the "selecting" limitation]
sharing, by a sharing service in communication with the
process, searchable video for customized viewing at a customer
web site; and
providing a browse web page having category links
arranged in a subject hierarchy.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 9-13, 19-24, 28-32, and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoffert (US 2001/0014891 Al; Aug. 16,
2001), Ford (US 2003/0195877 Al; Oct. 16, 2003), and Nihei (US
6,470,337 Bl; Oct. 22, 2002). Ans. 2-10.
2
Appeal2015-002018
Application 11/842,711
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Hoffert teaches the
"selecting" limitation because Hoffert does not select from among a plurality
of versions of a media file based on one of the recited criteria (i.e., video
format and video bit rate). App. Br. 7-9.
The Examiner finds Hoffert teaches the "selecting" limitation because
Hoffert teaches using a hash table to download and index only one version
of a media file. Ans. 12 (citing Hoffert iJ 3 6). The Examiner also finds
Hoffert teaches scanning webpages for predetermined HTML tag types and
storing URLs for the HTML documents containing media file references.
Ans. 12-13 (citing Hoffert iii! 39, 74). The Examiner finds these teachings
indicate that the URL denotes the format type of the media file to be
indexed. Ans. 13. The Examiner cites examples to support this finding,
noting that the system may exclude some media URLs from indexing "based
on the file format/type classified in the file description of paragraph [0038]
and as required by the system/user." Ans. 13. The Examiner cites a second
example, finding Hoffert teaches video indexing requires first downloading
the media file reference corresponding to the correct media type as required
by the system/user. Ans. 13 (citing Hoffert iJ 86). The Examiner thus finds
that because Hoffert discloses that some media files may be excluded from
indexing (Ans. 13 (citing Hoffert iJ 49)) and because downloading a file to
be indexed requires the correct file type (Ans. 13 (citing Hoffert iJ 86)),
Hoffert teaches the "selecting" limitation. Ans. 13.
We agree with Appellants' argument and are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Hoffert teach the "selecting"
limitation. Hoffert teaches indexing unique URLs. Hoffert iJ 36. The
3
Appeal2015-002018
Application 11/842,711
system avoids indexing duplicate URLs by using a hash table to ensure that
a particular URL has not already been indexed. Id. However, Hoffert does
not teach that one of a plurality of different versions of the URLs are
indexed based on the format or bit rate of a video.
Moreover, the claims recite selecting from among a plurality of
different version of a media file, not selecting from among a plurality of
URLs. The Examiner finds Hoffert teaches downloading only one version
of a media file (Ans. 12 (citing Hoffert ,-i 36)), but this finding is not
supported by the cited portions of the reference. Paragraph 36 teaches that
duplicate URLs will not be indexed, but it does not teach ensuring that only
one version of a video file is indexed. Hoffert ,-i 36. To the contrary, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that if two different URLs
referenced two different versions of the same media file, Hoffert' s system
would index both media files without considering the video format or the
video bit rate.
The Examiner also errs in finding the cited portions of Hoffert teach
that the URL indicates the format of the referenced file. See Ans. 12-13
(citing Hoffert ,-i,-i 39, 74). Hoffert teaches scanning web pages for HTML
types during the initial crawling stage and storing URLs for HTML
documents containing media file references, but these teachings do not
indicate that the stored URLs contain file formats. See Hoffert ,-i,-i 39--47.
To the contrary, Hoffert teaches the HTML pages may include HTML tags
used to markup the webpage for formatting purposes. Id. These tags are
unrelated to the content of the URL.
The Examiner also errs in finding the cited portions of Hoffert teach
the "selecting" limitation because Hoffert teaches downloading the correct
4
Appeal2015-002018
Application 11/842,711
file types when crawling a web page. Ans. 13 (citing Hoffert iii! 49, 86).
While Hoffert teaches that only correct file types are downloaded, Hoffert is
referring to scanning an entire web page for media files that match a certain
file format, not selecting among a plurality of versions of the same media
content as required by the claims. See Hoffert iii! 32-38, 81-96.3
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants'
argument has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 30, independent claim 9,
which recites similar limitations, and claims 10-13, 19-24, 28, 29, 31, 32,
and 3 5-3 7 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-13, 19-24, 28-32,
and 3 5-3 7 is reversed.
REVERSED
3 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue,
which is dispositive of the rejection of claim 30 over Hoffert, Ford, and
Nihei, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellants'
arguments.
5