Ex Parte Shupe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14495377 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/495,377 09/24/2014
21924 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
07/13/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor Scott Shupe
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.
21000 8989
EXAMINER
PARK, SUNGHYOUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 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):
ARRIS.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR SCOTT SHUPE
Appeal 2017-011239
Application 14/495,377 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies ARRIS Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-0011239
Application 14/495,377
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates generally to "a method,
system, and apparatus for storing a video segment for analysis." Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation emphasized.
1. A method for storing a video segment for analysis,
compnsmg:
receiving, by a digital video player, a digital video;
detecting, by the digital video player, a defect in the digital
video; and
storing, by the digital video player, a segment of the digital
video that contains the defect, the storage provided in memory
for later retrieval, the storage being initiated by a viewer when
the defect is detected.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kotecha (US 2013/0301424 Al, pub. Nov. 14,
2013) and Mody (US 2003/0206549 Al, pub. Nov. 6, 2003). Final Act. 3-8.
2. Claims 4 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kotecha, Mody, and Lee (US 2010/0114726 Al, pub.
May 6, 2010). Final Act. 8-10.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites "the storage being initiated by a viewer when the
defect is detected." The Examiner finds Mody teaches this disputed
limitation by disclosing that a client/user initiates storage of packets when a
2
Appeal 2017-0011239
Application 14/495,377
missing packet is detected. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Mody Fig. 5, ,r 39); Ans.
12-13 (citing Mody Abstract, ,r,r 27, 39). The Examiner finds that Mody's
client/user may be interpreted as the claimed viewer. Ans. 13.
Appellant argues "The combination ofKotecha and Mody fail to
teach a video segment analysis structure that allows storage initiated by a
viewer when a defect is detected." Br. 5. According to Appellant, "only a
client device/user is referenced" in Mody while an individual viewer is not.
Br. 5. Appellant contends the Specification "mentions a viewer as a person.
. . . Mody does not disclose anything like this that requires actions by a
viewer and not a machine." Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that a client/user initiating
storage of packets would teach or suggest an individual doing the same.
Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity
accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated
process over a manual activity. See In re Venner, 262 F .2d 91, 95 ( CCP A
1958). Here, the Appellant is essentially arguing the opposite of what is
typically argued, that a task performed manually by an individual viewer is
not obvious over a reference showing that same task being performed by an
automated client. We find this argument to be, in some ways, even more
unpersuasive than the aforementioned typical argument.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and of independent claim 9, which was argued together with claim
1. See Br. 6. Appellant does not separately argue the dependent claims.
Thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of the dependent claims for
the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 9.
3
Appeal 2017-0011239
Application 14/495,377
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4