Viacom International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2019002907 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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.
15/438,339 02/21/2017 Gregg William RIEDEL 40205/04004(MTV-040CON) 4738
30636 7590 12/23/2020
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
EXAMINER
HE, YINGCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com
okaplun@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGG WILLIAM RIEDEL, JEFF HESS, and
SCOTT DANAHY
____________

Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–41. Claims 1–21 are canceled. See
Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Viacom
International Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

2
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates generally
to displaying, repositioning, and/or formatting graphics on a display. See
Spec., Abst.
Claims 22 and 41 are illustrative:
22. A method, executed by one or more computer
processors in communication with one or more displays, for
displaying graphics on the one or more displays comprising:
receiving, by the one or more computer processors,
a graphics stream in a first playout format, the first playout
format comprising a first display resolution and a first display
layout;
determining, by the one or more computer
processors, a second playout format, the second playout format
comprising a second display resolution and a second display
layout;
identifying, by the one or more computer
processors, an area of importance within the first display layout
given the first display layout, the second display resolution, and
the second display layout;
identifying, within the second display format, cut
portions of the graphics stream that will not be displayed in the
second display layout;
identifying, within the second display format, a
viewing area comprising a portion of the second display layout
within which the entire graphics stream will be displayed;
determining, by the one or more computer
processors, a preferred position within the second display
layout for the area of importance, wherein the preferred position
is a user-selected location;
converting, by the one or more computer
processors, the graphics stream from the first playout format
into the second playout format using the area of importance and
the preferred position; and
displaying, by the one or more computer
processors on the one or more displays, the converted graphics
stream in the second playout format.

Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

3
41. A method, executed by one or more computer
processors in communication with one or more displays, for
displaying graphics on the one or more displays comprising:
receiving, by the one or more computer processors,
a graphics stream in a first playout format, the first playout
format comprising a first display resolution and a first display
layout;
determining, by the one or more computer
processors, a second playout format, the second playout format
comprising a second display resolution and a second display
layout;
determining, by the one or more computer
processors, an area of importance within the first display layout
given the first display layout, the second display resolution, and
the second display layout;
determining, by the one or more computer
processors, a preferred position within the second display
layout, wherein the preferred position is a location in the second
display layout that is in a relatively similar location as the area
of importance in the first display layout;
converting, by the one or more computer
processors, the graphics stream from the first playout format
into the second playout format using both the area of
importance and the preferred position concurrently; and
displaying, by the one or more computer
processors on the one or more displays, the converted graphics
stream in the second playout format.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 22–32, 35, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terry (US 5,546,131, Aug. 13, 1996)
and Mountain (US 2003/0025833 A1, Feb. 6, 2003). Final Act. 6–13.
R2. Claims 33, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Terry, Mountain and Rodriguez (US 2005/0160468
A1, July 21, 2005). Final Act. 13–16.
R3. Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

4
unpatentable over Terry, Mountain and Matsuo (US 2011/0032979 A1, Feb.
10, 2011). Final Act. 16–17.
R4. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeHaan (US 2012/0075526 A1, Mar. 29, 2012) and
Kondo (US 2008/0084503 A1, Apr. 10, 2008). Final Act. 18–21.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 103(a)
Claims 22–40
Appellant highlights that “the converting step of claim 22 recites that,
in the process of changing the formats, the area of importance and preferred
position are used.” Appeal Br. 7. With that in mind, Appellant contends
that “neither Terry nor Mountain either discloses or suggests ‘converting . . .
using the area of importance and the preferred position,’ as recited in claim
22.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further contends that “Terry never relies on
any area of interest or on any desired position . . . in performing the format
conversion . . . [instead] [t]he area of interest is always dealt with only after
the format conversion has been completed.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant also contends that “[l]ike Terry, Mountain uses the already
converted transmission as a basis for determining the manner in which the
teletext is to be inserted.” Id. We agree with Appellant.
Here, the Examiner finds that in Terry “there exist two graphics
streams: one is the transmitted picture in the 4:3 format, and the other is a
graphics stream displayed on the 16:9 format display without losing the
Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

5
subtitles.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that in Terry “[t]he area of
importance is the area where the subtitles are and the preferred position is
the position where the subtitles are visible.” Ans. 4–5.
In other words, the Examiner finds that in Terry the first playout
format is the 4:3 format, the second playout format is the displayed 16:9
format display without losing the subtitles, whereby there is no need to shift
the subtitles to another position on the display area, i.e., you already have
your preferred position because the subtitles are still visible.
First, we note that the Examiner’s proffered converted 16:9 format,
without losing visible subtitles, is not explicitly disclosed in Terry because
Terry assumes that at least some portion of the subtitles are lost due to the
expansion to the wide aspect ratio and Terry’s invention is based thereon.
Second, as noted by Appellant, the distinction between the claimed subject
matter and Terry’s process “is with regard to the converting operation and
how this converting operation is performed – not necessarily the final
displayed output.” See Reply Br. 5.
Stated differently, Appellant emphasizes, and we agree, that it is the
“converting process” of the claimed subject matter that is distinguishable
from Terry’s converting process, not the final displayed output. For
example, the claimed subject matter requires converting . . . using the area
of importance and the preferred position (see claim 22), whereas Terry
merely converts from the 4:3 format to the expanded 16:9 format, without
providing any discussion about using the area of importance (e.g. the
subtitles) and the preferred position (e.g., the visible part of the display)
during the converting process. Instead, as identified by Appellant, Terry
only uses the area of importance and the preferred position after the
Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

6
conversion from the 4:3 to the expanded 16:9 format has occurred, i.e.,
“detecting the presence of subtitles within the undisplayed part [of the 16:9
format] and means for shifting any such subtitles so detected to a displayed
part of the received picture.” Terry 2:51–53.
Similarly, the Examiner incorrectly finds that Mountain teaches the
aforementioned argued limitation because Mountain discloses “shifting
subtitles or text data either automatically . . . by a user selection and
therefore only the text is moved with respect to the video display and prior to
the display being generated on screen.” Ans. 5 (citations omitted).
However, claim 22 requires converting using the area of importance and the
preferred position, not merely using these criteria prior to or during display
on the screen, i.e., not displaying using. We find that Mountain, like Terry,
merely teaches moving text after conversion (i.e., after the 4:3 format is
zoomed), but prior to displaying on screen. As such, the Examiner fails to
illustrate that Mountain teaches the claimed conversion process.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Terry and
Mountain, either alone or in combination, teach the aforementioned
limitations, as recited in each of independent claims 22 and 40. The
Examiner has not found any of the other references of record that teach this
feature. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s remaining arguments
regarding claim 22. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 22–40.

Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

7
Claim 41
Appellant contends that “the ticker of Kondo is dealt with only after
format conversion has been completed and neither the ticker nor its desired
position is not used in any way in the conversion itself.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
As such, Appellant contends that “in a manner substantially similar to that of
Terry and Mountain described above . . . Kondo [also] does not disclose or
suggest performing a conversion by considering the area of importance and
the preferred position. Rather, these are addressed only after the format
conversion in Kondo has been completed.” Id. at 11. We agree with
Appellant.
Although the Examiner illustrates that Kondo teaches “the converted
image [is] provided to the display 26 . . . [and] an updated display ratio with
the ticker viewable” (see Ans. 7–8), we find the Examiner is conflating a
“displaying” function with a “converting” function. While the results of the
conversion is ultimately displayed on the screen in Kondo, the conversion
step itself must include using both the area of importance and the preferred
position, concurrently. The Examiner has not shown that Kondo teaches
such a claimed conversion step.
Instead, Kondo merely discloses that “the image converter 24 starts
the size conversion process based on the information representing the
conversion factor K supplied in step S13 from the image format detector
22.” Kondo ¶ 173. The Examiner fails to demonstrate that Kondo
concurrently uses information pertaining to the area of importance and the
preferred position, when performing such a conversion process.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Kondo, either
alone or in combination with DaHaan, teach the aforementioned limitations,
Appeal 2019-002907
Application 15/438,339

8
as recited in independent claim 41. Because we agree with at least one of
the arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments with respect to claim 41. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 41.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 22–41 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22–32, 35,
38, 40
103 Terry, Mountain 22–32,
35, 38, 40
33, 34, 39 103 Terry, Mountain,
Rodriguez
33, 34, 39
36, 37 103 Terry, Mountain,
Matsuo
36, 37
41 103 DeHaan, Kondo 41
Overall
Outcome
22–41

REVERSED