Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

14696117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
14/696,117 04/24/2015 Gary Wilson Cox 15-016 1304
146701 7590 09/23/2020
McDonnellBoehnenHulbert&Berghoff LLP/Tribune Media
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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 GARY WILSON COX
____________________

Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,1171
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–4, 8–16, and 18–24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a method for spell-checking a video stream.
A computing device receives first data representing first text, and queries a
search engine using a first search phrase including the first text. Responsive

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Tribune
Broadcasting Company, LLC. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 5–7 and 17 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

2
to a determination that the search engine has suggested a second search
phrase, including second text different from the first search phrase, the
computing device modifies the received video stream by overlaying the
second text on the received video stream. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 59.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a video stream;
receiving, by the computing device, first data representing
first text;
querying, by the computing device, a search engine using
a first search-phrase, wherein the first search-phrase includes the
represented first text;
determining, by the computing device, that the search
engine has suggested a second search-phrase based on the query,
wherein the second search-phrase includes second text and is
different from the first search-phrase; and
responsive to determining that the search engine has
suggested the second search-phrase based on the query,
modifying, by the computing device, the received video stream
by overlaying the second text on the received video stream.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Schneider US 2005/0235031 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Burke US 2007 /0043706 Al Feb. 22, 2007
Lee US 2012/0066195 Al Mar. 15, 2012
Zhang US 2012/0281139 Al Nov. 8, 2012
Hendry US 2013/0238584 Al Sept. 12, 2013
Press US 2014/0372399 Al Dec. 18, 2014

Claims 1, 2, 8–10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schneider, and Zhang. Final
Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

3
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Hendry. Final Act. 9.
Claims 4, 12, 13, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Press. Final Act. 10.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Burke. Final Act. 14.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 9, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr.
19, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 19, 2019) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Lee, Schneider, and Zhang teach or
suggest responsive to determining that a search engine has suggested a
second search-phrase based on a search query, modifying a received video
stream by overlaying the second text on the received video stream?
2. Does the combination of Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Press teach or
suggest identifying, by the computing device, an indicator phrase within a
received search result?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The test of obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference, nor is it that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

4
Id. at 425.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 8–11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21–24
Appellant argues that Lee teaches a search engine that suggests
correctly spelled search queries when a user inputs a misspelled search
query, maintains a search log of all input search queries, and generates
query-suggestion pairs from the search log while discarding misspelled
search queries from the search log. Appeal Br. 8. Even if Lee teaches
making a determination that the search engine has suggested a second
search-phrase based on the query, Appellant has not found any teaching or
suggestion in Lee of modifying a received video stream. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner relies on
Zhang, not Lee, for a teaching of overlaying a search query on a received
video stream. The Examiner relies on Lee for its teaching of a search engine
responding to a misspelled search query with search results that include the
correct spelling of the query words. Lee ¶ 22.
Appellant contends that Zhang does not make up for the deficiencies
of Lee. Appeal Br. 9. At best, Zhang teaches modifying a video stream by
overlaying downscaled captions on the video stream. Id. The downscaled
captions of Zhang do not amount to text included in a suggested search
phrase. Id. Appellant has not found any disclosure suggesting overlaying
captions on a video stream responsive to a search engine suggesting and
logging a correctly-spelled search query. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant again argues
against a reference (Zhang) individually, where the Examiner has applied a
combination of references against the claims. The Examiner relied on Zhang
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

5
for the teaching of “modifying a streaming video via . . . overlaying” that
video with captions. Ans. 7.
Appellant asserts that Schneider does not make up for the deficiencies
of Lee and Zhang. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, nowhere in Lee is
there teaching or suggestion of using the search log as a spell checker.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, because the
Examiner relies on Schneider, rather than Lee, to teach the concept of spell
checking, especially of text on video. “Aspects of the present invention may
extend the use of spell checking when applied to streaming text or real time
decoded text such as but not limited to teletext, closed caption, analog and/or
digital audio and/or video signals, broadcasts, instant messaging, chat
rooms, web conferencing, telephone, etc.” Schneider ¶ 70 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how
one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the search log of Lee in the
manner asserted. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts that one of ordinary skill
would not have been motivated to modify the references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Appeal Br. 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Lee in view of
Schneider so that the stored search log of Lee could be used “as a source to
conduct spell checking for closed captions for video,” and “to provide a
method for improving and expanding spell checking.” Final Act. 5. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Lee and
Schneider in view of Zhang to expand “the video that is sent in Schneider to
also be streaming video,” and to use Schneider’s spell check features before
captions “are used in modifying the video stream.” Id. at 6. Zhang’s
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

6
teachings “would have allowed Lee’s and Schneider’s to provide a method
for the adapting streaming video to clients.” Ans. 6. We determine that the
Examiner stated a rationale for combining Lee with Schneider with Zhang
having a rational underpinning to support the legal combination of
obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellant’s further arguments against the Examiner’s combination of
references amount to assertions that the references could not be bodily
combined, but such bodily incorporation is not the test of obviousness. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner has identified the teachings in each of
Lee, Schneider, and Zhang, and has provided reasons why the skilled artisan
would have combined the references to obtain the invention under appeal.
Thus, we find that the Examiner did not err in combining Lee,
Schneider, and Zhang to achieve the invention recited in claims 1, 2, 8–10,
14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
these claims. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3
and 11, not separately argued, over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Hendry, and
we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 23 and 24, not
separately argued, over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Burke.
Claims 4, 12, 13, 16, and 20
Claim 4 recites, inter alia, “identifying, by the computing device, an
indicator phrase within the received search result.” Claims 12 and 16 recite
substantially identical limitations.
Appellant argues that Press teaches determining a frequency of how
often a user interacts with a suggested search query, and further teaches that
the suggested search query can include an indicator phrase such as “DID
YOU MEAN.” Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant contends that Press does not
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

7
identify the indicator phrase itself within the received search result, for the
purpose of determining that the search engine has suggested the search
query, as claim 4 requires. Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Press teaches
calculating the percentage of the times that suggestions given by an auto-
suggest feature are based on a spell-corrected version of the input query.
Press ¶ 43. Press teaches “analysis of the frequency with which the user
makes use of the query-refinement tools (such as the “DID YOU MEAN:
” prompt. Press ¶ 43. We agree with the Examiner
that Press thus teaches an identification, by the computing device, of that
indicator phrase within a received search result. We sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 4, 12, and 16, as well as claims 13 and 20 not
separately argued, over Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Press.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Lee, Schneider, and Zhang suggests,
responsive to determining that a search engine has suggested a second
search-phrase based on a search query, modifying a received video stream
by overlaying the second text on the received video stream.
2. The combination of Lee, Schneider, Zhang, and Press suggests
identifying, by the computing device, an indicator phrase within a received
search result.
Appeal 2019-003973
Application 14/696,117

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8–10,
14, 15, 18,
19, 21, 22
103 Lee, Schneider,
Zhang
1, 2, 8–10,
14, 15, 18,
19, 21, 22

3, 11 103 Lee, Schneider,
Zhang, Hendry
3, 11
4, 12, 13, 16,
20
103 Lee, Schneider,
Zhang, Press
4, 12, 13,
16, 20

23, 24 103 Lee, Schneider,
Zhang, Burke
23, 24
Overall
Outcome

1–4, 8–16,
18–24

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 8–16, and 18–24 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED