Ex Parte Ruffini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2018

12624711 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2018)

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.
12/624,711 11/24/2009 Michael P. Ruffini 20090371 8849
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
MESA, JOSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2018 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL P. RUFFINI and
HARPAL S. BASSALI
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,7111
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 8, 11—23, 25—27, 30, and 31.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to trick play advertising systems and
methods. Spec. 113. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 24, 28, and 29 have been canceled. Id. at 26, 31, 32.
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a media content access system, a Moving
Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) media content stream
comprising data representative of a media content program;
detecting, by the media content access system during a
presentation of the media content program, a command to
execute a trick play function on the media content program;
accessing, by the media content access system in response
to the detecting of the command to execute the trick play
function, image data representative of a splash screen
advertisement from the MPEG media content stream, the
accessing of the image data representative of the splash screen
advertisement comprising
identifying, using indexing data, a segment of the media
content program to be subjected to the trick play function, and
identifying, using the indexing data, an 1-frame included
in the segment of the media content program to be subjected to
the trick play function as the splash screen advertisement, the
indexing data comprising a pointer to the 1-frame included in the
segment of the media content program to be subjected to the trick
play function; and
providing, by the media content access system, the
identified 1-frame as the splash screen advertisement for display
in a partial screen format on a display device during an execution
of the trick play function, the display of the splash screen
advertisement in the partial screen format partially interrupting a
graphical view of the media content program as displayed during
the execution of the trick play function.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Holden (US
8,307,390 B2; priority to continuation-in-part filed Feb. 26, 2009)
(hereinafter, “Holden”) and Fujinami (US 6,363,212 Bl; issued Mar. 26,
2002) (hereinafter, “Fujinami”). Ans. 2—17.
2
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
Claims 2, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and
Rajakarunanayake (US 2009/0080864 Al; published Mar. 26, 2009). Ans.
17-22.
Claims 3, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and Kapur (US
7,827,490 B2; filed Nov. 30, 2006). Ans. 22-26.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, Cansler (US
2009/0325713 Al; filed June 30, 2008) (hereinafter, “Cansler”), and Komori
(US 2006/0044955 Al; published Mar. 2, 2006). Ans. 26-29.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and Duggal (US
2010/0299187 Al; provisional priority to May 19, 2009). Ans. 29-31.
Claims 5, 12—14, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and Clark
(US 2007/0101365 Al; published May 3, 2007) (hereinafter, “Clark”). Ans.
31-36.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, Clark, and
Robotham (US 2009/0276807 Al; filed May 1, 2008). Ans. 36-38.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and Cansler. Ans.
38-39.
3
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holden, Fujinami, and Shimizu (US
2008/0253449 Al; published Oct. 16, 2008). Ans. 39-AO.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Holden teaches advertisements included in the
beginning, middle, or end of a television program and creating trick play
advertisements using I-frames from the advertisements. Ans. 2, 7, 11 (citing
Holden, 4:65—5:6, 17:14—67). The Examiner maps the advertisements to the
limitation “media content program” recited in claims 1,16, and 19. Ans. 2,
7, 11. Additionally, the Examiner finds Holden teaches in response to
selection of a trick mode, a trick file containing an alternate advertisement
may be played, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “accessing, ... in
response to the detecting of the command to execute the trick play function,
image data representative of a splash screen advertisement from the MPEG
media content stream” (hereinafter, “limitation 1”) recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claim 19). Ans. 3, 12 (citing Holden, 6:15—20, 10:5—64,
11:14^42, Fig. 3b).
Moreover, the Examiner finds Holden teaches alternate content 302
that is advertising shown on a screen that is presented in response to a trick
play command, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “identifying, . . .
an I-frame included in the segment of the media content program to be
subjected to the trick play function as the splash screen advertisement”
(hereinafter, “limitation 2”) recited in claims 1 and 19 (and similarly recited
in claim 16). Ans. 4, 8, 13 (citing Holden, 10:44—64, 11:14^42, Figs. 3b and
6). In addition, the Examiner finds Holden teaches alternate content 302 that
4
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
is advertising shown on a partial screen format that is presented in response
to a trick play command, which the Examiner maps to the limitation:
“providing . . . the identified I-frame as the splash screen
advertisement for display in a partial screen format on a display
device during an execution of the trick play function, the display
of the splash screen advertisement in the partial screen format
partially interrupting a graphical view of the media content
program as displayed during the execution of the trick play
function”
(hereinafter, “limitation 3”) recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in
claims 16 and 19). Ans. 4—5, 9, 13 (citing Holden, 10:44—64, 11:14-42, Fig.
3b).
Appellants argue Holden fails to teach limitation 1 because Holden
teaches a separate stream from the standard original content files. App. Br.
15. In addition, Appellants argue Holden fails to teach limitation 2 because
Holden indicates that I-frames are used in creation of conventional trick files
rather than alternate advertising trick files. Id. at 15—16 (citing Holden,
1:65—2:7, 5:24-46, 7:37—39, 9:24—35). Appellants also argue Holden fails to
teach limitation 2 because Holden’s alternate content is different from the
standard original program content. Id. at 16 (citing Holden, Abstract, 2:48—
50, 7:34-42, 11:14—21). Appellants argue Holden fails to teach limitation 3
because Holden teaches using I-frames from the original content rather than
using I-frames as the splash screen advertisement. Id. at 18—19. We
disagree with Appellants.
At the outset, the Specification discloses “media content program”
includes: (1) program content segments 802; with (2) commercial breaks
804. Spec. 195. Similarly, the cited portions of Holden relied upon by the
Examiner teach advertisements in the beginning, middle, or end of a
5
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
television program and creating trick play advertisements using I-frames
from the advertisements. Ans. 2, 7, 11 (citing Holden, 4:65—5:6, 17:14—67).
We agree Holden’s advertisements in the beginning, middle, or end of a
television program teaches the “media content program” recited in claims 1,
16, and 19. See Holden, 4:65—5:6, 17:14—67.
Additionally, the cited portions of Holden relied upon by the
Examiner teach in response to selection of a trick mode, a trick file
containing an alternate advertisement may be played, which teaches
limitation 1. Ans. 3, 12 (citing Holden, 6:15—20, 10:5—64, 11:14-42, Fig.
3b). In particular, the cited portions of Holden relied upon by the Examiner
teach creating trick play advertisements using I-frames from the
advertisements (Ans. 2, 7, 11 (citing Holden, 17:14—67)), because the cited
portions of Holden teach the trick play advertisements using I-frames are
derived from thirty seconds of video of the advertisement or spots (the
recited “media content program”). See Holden, 17:14—67. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Holden teaches “from the MPEG media
content stream” as recited in claims 1 and 19 (and similarly recited in claim
16).
Furthermore, the cited portions of Holden relied upon by the
Examiner teach alternate content 302 that is advertising shown on a screen
and presented in response to a trick play command. Ans. 4, 8, 13 (citing
Holden, 10:44—64, 11:14-42, Fig. 3b). We also note the cited portions of
Holden relied upon by the Examiner teach identifying I-frames in the
advertisements to be subject to trick play function as the splash screen
advertisement (Ans. 2, 7, 11 (citing Holden, 17:14—67)), because the cited
portions of Holden teach extracting I-frames from the advertisement and
6
Appeal 2017-004628
Application 12/624,711
creating a trick-file ad from those frames (the recited “media content
program”). See Holden, 17:20-25. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the alternate content is different from the standard
original program content, but rather agree with the Examiner Holden teaches
limitation 2.
In addition, the cited portions of Holden relied upon by the Examiner
teach alternate content 302 that is advertising shown on a partial screen
format that is presented in response to a trick play command, which we
agree teaches limitation 3. See Holden, 10:44—64, 11:14^42, Fig. 3b.
Also, for the above reasons, we need not address Appellants’
arguments related to Fujinami. App. Br. 19—22.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 16, and 19; and (2) dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-23,25-27, 30, and 31.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5, 8, 11—23, 25—27, 30,
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
7