UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________
Ex parte LUDOVIC PIERRE, STEVEN SZYMANSKI,
and DEBRA HENSGEN
____________________
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,1421
Technology Center 2400
____________________
Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 The real party in interest is OpenTV, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for delivering
and processing “relational” metadata within a television system.
“Relational” metadata includes a relationship identifier and at least a pair of
data, wherein the relationship identifier defines the relationship between the
two sets of data. Upon receipt of a broadcasted signal and “relational”
metadata, a client is configured to perform a predetermined action which
corresponds to the received “relational” metadata and the identified data
sets. The client includes a mass storage device configured to store received
“relational” metadata and broadcasted programming. Examples of
predetermined actions defined by “relational” meta include but are not
limited to (1) replacing a first stored data with a second data, (2) deleting the
first or second data from the storage device, (3) requesting the second data
from a remote location, or (4) copying a previously captured portion of a
broadcast signal from a temporary buffer to a mass storage device.
(Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for processing relational metadata in a television system,
the method comprising:
receiving at a client device at least one relational metadata instruction
via a television programming signal, wherein the relational metadata
instruction includes at least a relationship identifier and a dataset element,
wherein said relationship identifier specifies a type of relationship between a
first data and a second data, and wherein the dataset element identifies the
second data;
2
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
identifying an action corresponding to the relational metadata
instruction; and initiating the action in response to the identifying.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fries US 6,317,885 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Claims 1-5 and 7-44 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Fries.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed June 12, 2008), the Reply Brief
(filed November 18, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed September
18, 2008), for their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that Fries does not disclose a relational metadata
instruction or an instruction that provides relationship information between
two sets of data (App. Br. 11). Specifically, Appellants assert that Fries fails
to teach or suggest a relational metadata instruction that includes at least a
relationship identifier and a dataset element (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue
further that Fries fails to teach or suggest identifying an action
corresponding to the relational metadata instruction and initiating that action
in response to identifying the relational metadata instruction (App. Br. 13).
Moreover, Appellants contend that Fries clearly fails to teach or suggest a
relational metadata instruction that identifies content which is stored on a
mass storage device and instructs that a portion of the identified content
from the mass storage device be deleted (App. Br. 17). Finally, Appellants
3
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
assert that nowhere in Fries is it disclosed that a first data and a second data
have a relationship “selected from the group consisting of: a summary, a
correction, a repeat, a highlight, more detailed content, related text, and a
related icon” (App. Br. 18).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following four issues:
1. Does Fries disclose a relational metadata instruction that includes at
least a relationship identifier and a dataset element?
2. Does Fries disclose an action that corresponds to the relational
metadata instruction that is initiated in response to identifying the
instruction?
3. Does Fries disclose a relational metadata instruction that identifies
content which is stored on a mass storage device and instructs that a portion
of the identified content from the mass storage device be deleted?
4. Does Fries disclose a relational metadata having first and second
data, wherein the first data and second data have a type of relationship
“selected from the group consisting of: a summary, a correction, a repeat, a
highlight, more detailed content, related text, and a related icon”?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Metadata is “data or information about other data,” such as an
electronic programming guide, available languages, genre of a movie, or
names of actors. Metadata is limited to information and/or functionality
(Spec. 4:4-12).
4
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
2. “Relational” metadata is “metadata which indicates a
relationship between two or more sets of data.” Relational metadata may
indicate one portion of a broadcast that corrects or highlights another portion
of the broadcast, or contains more or fewer details than another portion of
the broadcast. (Spec. 11:1-11).
Fries
3. Fries discloses an information service server 46 included within
a cable head-end 22 comprises a carousel delivery application 49 for
delivering a carousel 50 of rendered HTML page images to the set-top box
28 along with metadata for each page. An MPEG video decoder 52 within
the set-top box 28 decodes each page image consisting of a single frame
MPEG2 video sequence. The metadata for each page describes the structure
and contents of the page image. A defaulted home carousel page may
provide the subscriber with a page image having page elements displayed
thereon including links to other information or forms. (col. 4, ll. 15-28) The
cable box uses the on-screen display (OSD) 96 to draw focus, denoted by a
ring or a box, around an initial page image. (col. 7, ll.1-5) The subscriber
may use the remote to scan through the page images and select a page
image. When the subscriber selects a page image, the browser 62 performs
an action defined by the metadata associated with the displayed page image
which may include hyperlinking to another display page, filling in a check-
box, submitting a form, etc. (Figs. 1-3 and 6; col. 7, 18-25; col. 8, ll. 48-54).
4. Fries discloses that a metadata tag for the shape of a focus area
may include the shape of a circle, rectangle or a polygon (i.e.,
SHAPE=RECT). In addition, the coordinates (COORDS) define the
5
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
coordinates of the focus. (Col. 21, ll. 18-21 and 30) The geometry in the
page metadata includes information necessary for the browser 62 to draw
focus on that area (col. 11, ll. 24-37).
5. Fries discloses an example of an intermediate page format (IPF)
file that includes at least one relational metadata instruction: “
” (col. 21,
ll. 53-54).
6. Fries discloses that “when a carousel 50 is ready for
transmission, the information server 46 periodically takes each carousel
image stored in the carousel 50 and injects the image on the transmission
medium 24.” This process continues until the page information changes.
Each time the carousel changes, a carousel builder 146 creates a new
carousel image from the carousel description and the pages are stored in
memory. The new carousel image replaces the old carousel at the beginning
of the next cycle (col. 22, ll. 45-60).
7. Fries discloses that audio may be broadcasted in real-time by
regularly changing the carousel (col. 33, ll. 56-67).
8. Fries discloses that pages are delivered to the server in a two-
stage process. First, a content provider transfers information from an
external source such as the Internet 48 to the Information Service server,
including a date and time when the content is to bec
ome valid. (Co. 19, ll. 55-60) Second, using HTTP, the information service
server gathers the content at the specified URL and stores it for processing
into the carousel (col. 19, l. 64-66).
6
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25-33, 35-37, 39, and 41-44
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites “receiving at a client device at least one
relational metadata instruction via a television programming signal, wherein
the relational metadata instruction-includes at least a relationship identifier
and a dataset element, wherein said relationship identifier specifies a type of
relationship between a first data and a second data, and wherein the dataset
element identifies the second data.” Further, representative claim 1 recites
“identifying an action corresponding to the relational metadata instruction;
and initiating the action in response to the identifying.”
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
meta-data for each carousel page describes the structure and contents of the
page image (Ans. 9, FF 3). Fries discloses that page metadata is sent with
each carousel page (FF 3). An initial focus area is drawn by the cable box
on the display screen denoted by a ring or a box around the page image (FF
7
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
3). There are various shapes that may be defined by metadata for drawing
the focus area, such as a circle, rectangle, or polygon (FF 4). Fries discloses
an example of a relational metadata instruction; such as
(FF 5).
Appellants define metadata as “data or information about other data” and
“relational” metadata as “metadata which indicates a relationship between
two or more sets of data” (FF 1 and 2). In the given example supra, Fries
discloses that the relationship identifier is “RECT” and the dataset includes
coordinates, “COORDS= ‘427, 36, 583, 68’” (FF 5). “RECT” indicates that
the focus area will be rectangular in shape and that the coordinates define the
boundaries of the rectangle (FF 4 and 5). Therefore the relationship
identifier, “RECT,” at least identifies the type of relationship between the
first and second data elements, “427” and “36” (FF 4 and 5). The
corresponding action is that a rectangular focus box will be drawn on the
carousel page at the specific coordinates identified (FF 3 and 4). Thus, Fries
discloses a relational metadata instruction that includes at least a relationship
identifier and a dataset element and an action that corresponds to the
relational metadata instruction is initiated in response to identifying the
instruction.
Therefore, we find that Fries discloses a relational metadata
instruction that includes at least a relationship identifier and a dataset
element and that an action that corresponds to the relational metadata
instruction is initiated in response to identifying the instruction. As a result,
we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of representative claim 1 and
that of claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25-33, 35-37, 39, and 41-
44.
8
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
Claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 24, and 34
We select claim 3 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first data is included in the broadcast
signal and wherein the relational metadata instruction is received subsequent
to the first data.”
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. As noted supra, we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 from which claims 3 and 4 depend. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Fries discloses regularly changing the carousel to
receive transmission of audio data in a real-time broadcast (Ans. 12, FF 7).
Fries discloses that when the carousel is ready for transmission, the
information server periodically takes each carousel image stored in the
carousel and injects that image on the transmission medium (FF 6). This
process continues for the carousel until the page information is changed (FF
6). Fries discloses that each time the carousel changes, the carousel builder
creates a new carousel image from the carousel description and the pages
(FF 6). When the new carousel image is complete, it replaces the old
carousel at the beginning of the next cycle (FF 6). As noted supra, Fries
discloses that page metadata is sent with each carousel page (FF 3).
Therefore, it logically follows that as the carousel is updated, data included
in the first broadcasted signal is followed by subsequent relational metadata.
Therefore, we find Fries discloses the claim limitation that “wherein
the first data is included in the broadcast signal and wherein the relational
metadata instruction is received subsequent to the first data.” As a result, we
9
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 3 and that of claims 4,
15, 16, 24 and 34.
Claims 10, 20, and 38
Claim 10 recites that “the relational metadata instruction identifies
content which is stored on a mass storage device, and wherein the action
comprises deleting a portion of the identified content from the mass storage
device.” Claims 20 and 38 recite claim limitations similar in scope.
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Specifically, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Fries discloses that the relational metadata instruction defines an action
that deletes a portion of the identified content from the mass storage device
(Ans. 4-5). We agree with Appellants’ contention that Fries is silent to
deleting the stored content when the time expires or the content becomes
“invalid,” as the Examiner has found (Ans. 12, Reply Br. 10). Fries
discloses that pages are delivered to the server in a two-stage process where
a content provider transfers information from the Internet to the server,
including a date and time when the content is to become valid (FF 8). There
is no mention of the data expiring or being deleted.
Therefore, we find Fries does not disclose that “the relational
metadata instruction identifies content which is stored on a mass storage
device, and wherein the action comprises deleting a portion of the identified
content from the mass storage device.” As a result, we will sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 10 and that of claims 20 and 38.
Claims 13, 18, and 40
Claim 13 recites “wherein the relationship of the second data to the
first data is selected from the group consisting of: a summary, a correction, a
10
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
repeat, a highlight, more detailed content, related text, and a related icon.”
Claims 18 and 40 recite claim limitations similar in scope.
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 10). Specifically, we do not
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Fries further discloses the
relationship of the second data to the first data as claimed (Ans. 5 and 12-
13). Although Fries teaches various types of data, Fries is silent as to a type
of relationship between the first and second data as claimed.
Therefore, we find that Fries does not disclose the features recited in
claims 13, 18, and 40. As a result, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 102
rejection of claim 13 and that of claims 18 and 40.
CONCLUSIONS
Fries discloses a relational metadata instruction that includes at least a
relationship identifier and a dataset element.
Fries discloses an action that corresponds to the relational metadata
instruction that is initiated in response to identifying the instruction.
Fries does not disclose a relational metadata instruction that identifies
content which is stored on a mass storage device and instructs that a portion
of the identified content from the mass storage device be deleted.
Fries does not disclose a relational metadata having first and second
data, wherein the first data and second data have a type of relationship
“selected from the group consisting of: a summary, a correction, a repeat, a
highlight, more detailed content, related text, and a related icon.”
11
Appeal 2009-007797
Application 09/974,142
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24,
25-34, 35-37, 39, and 41-44 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims
10, 13, 18, 20, 38, and 40 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ELD
OPTV/MEYERTONS
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
12
