Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2020

2019002154 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 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.
14/522,459 10/23/2014 Venkata R. Jonnadula 4348US01 2710
108982 7590 05/21/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2020 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VENKATA R. JONNADULA, MASON S. WOLF,
SRINATH R. JOSHI, MARESA NIRWAN,
JESUS ARMANDO FIGUEROA SALIDO, and
RICHARD N. WISHER

____________

Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–21, which are all pending claims.
Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “on-demand metadata insertion
into single-stream content” in which “[m]etadata is injected into the content
stream at runtime in association with a starting point of the alternate
content.” Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced
below, with emphasis added to disputed elements:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining media content responsive to a request, the
media content being included in a content stream that also
includes alternate content that is spliced into the content
stream;
responsive to obtaining the media content,
generating metadata associated with the alternate content,
the metadata including displayable content and
information identifying the alternate content;
embedding the metadata into the content stream at
runtime in association with a starting point of the alternate
content, the embedded metadata configured to enable a
single media player application to, during playback of the
content stream by the single media player application,
identify the alternate content based on the information and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Adobe Systems, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

3
determine a location of the alternate content within the
content stream without employing another media player
application, the displayable content in the embedded
metadata configured to be synchronously displayed with
the alternate content; and
transmitting the content stream as a single stream to
the single media player application for playback of the
media content, the alternate content, and the displayable
content.
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).

B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–8, 10–14, and 16–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plotnick (US 2008/0059997 A1; Mar. 6,
2008), Murakami (US 2010/0242065 A1; Sept. 23, 2010), and Sun (US
2013/0064283 A1; Mar. 14, 2013). Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Plotnick, Murakami, Sun, and Craner (US 2014/0164078
A1; June 12, 2014). Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following primarily for
emphasis.

Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

4
A. Obviousness Rejection Claim 1
Appellant argues that the combination of references fails to teach or
suggest the claimed “embedding the metadata into the content stream at
runtime.” Appeal Br. 9. Particularly, Appellant contends
Sun describes the metadata being embedded before the content
streams are packaged, and before playback of the content is
initiated. The metadata of Sun is not embedded at runtime,
since the content segments are already available when runtime
is initiated by the client.

Appeal Br. 10 (citing Sun ¶¶ 6, 27, 23, 24).
We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Sun’s system
contains an encoder for receiving live contents from external
sources in order to distribute the received contents to some
client devices and the encoder is responsible to embed metadata
to the live contents during the live broadcast and there are
timestamp and presentation time embedded with the metadata
for facilitating synchronization of the displayed contents.

Ans. 7 (citing Sun Fig. 3B, ¶¶ 31–36, 27–29, 6–7, 42–45). The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, that
the system further discloses the encapsulation of streams 200
and 202 into IP packets can allow for the delivery of these
streams to IP clients via IP multicast (e.g., in the case of a live
broadcast) or via IP unicast (e.g., in the case of video on
demand[)].

Ans. 15 (citing Sun ¶ 20). In addition to encoding live contents, Sun teaches
embedding metadata as part of the encoding process, as illustrated in the
figures, in which step 304 performs “encod[ing]” and comprises sub-steps
306, 308, 310, and sub-step 310 performs “em[bedding] metadata.” See
Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

5
Figs. 3A, 3B. Further, Appellant’s argument relies on “runtime” being
“initiated by the client” whereas “runtime” is not defined by the claim, and
Appellant offers no explicit definition from the disclosure. Appellant’s
argument is, therefore, not commensurate with the scope of the claims.2
Appellant argues next that the combination of references fails to teach
or suggest the claimed “displayable content in the embedded metadata
configured to be synchronously displayed with the alternate content.”
Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant contends that
Sun simply describes aligning different content streams by an
encoder, and then outputting the content streams to a data store
or to a packager. Neither the encoder or the packager described
by Sun enable “the displayable content in the embedded
metadata . . . to be synchronously displayed with the alternate
content.”

Appeal Br. 12 (citing Sun ¶¶ 35–36, 38, 24).
We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner first finds,
and we agree, that Plotnick teaches or suggests the claimed “generating
metadata associated with the alternate content, the metadata including
displayable content and information identifying the alternate content,”
because Plotnick teaches
a data tagging unit 308 adds metadata descriptors to video to be
recorded. The metadata is used by the PVR to identify and
characterize programs [Plotnick ¶ 105];

2 Similarly, Appellant’s related arguments that “[t]he proposed combination
of references would require a change in operating principle” (see Appeal Br.
13–15), and “[t]he proposed combination of references teaches away from
the claimed subject matter” (see Appeal Br. 15–16) rely on Appellant’s
definition of “runtime” that is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. Thus, these arguments are also not persuasive.
Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

6

metadata is data that is associated with a particular section of
content that describes that content. Metadata includes
descriptive items such as title, genre, cast, production company
and production crew, language and other program related
information [Plotnick ¶¶ 131–133];

adjusting the coloring of the advertisement so that an I-frame
could be used as a background (i.e., logo) with a video segment
running in front of it [Plotnick ¶¶ 211, 59]; [and]

ads that can be placed in the advertising portion of the IPG
include static advertisements inserted in the IPG, video clips
and streaming media played through the IPG, and combinations
of static ads and video clips displayed in the IPG [Plotnick
¶ 125].

Ans. 5 (formatting added for legibility). In sum, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that “Plotnick discloses a system that is capable of embedding
additional contents as metadata and alternate contents to the main video
content.” Ans. 16. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the
motivation to combine Sun with Murakami and Plotnick is “synchronizing
display or presentation of embedded contents in disclosing timestamps and
time of presentation related to the embedded contents.” Id. We see no error
in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and no Reply was filed.
Appellant further argues that “[t]he Office’s analysis supporting its
§ 103 rejection has not been made explicit” (Appeal Br. 16) regarding the
motivation to combine
1. Murakami with Plotnick (Appeal Br. 16, citing Final Act. 5, 7, 9), and
2. Sun with Murakami and Plotnick
Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

7
(Appeal Br. 16, citing Final Act. 6, 7, 9), because “the Office has essentially
recited as its motivation for incorporating Murakami portions of Appellant’s
own claim language.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis in original). Similarly,
Appellant contends that “the Office’s rejection is based on improper
hindsight.” Appeal Br. 19.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that one skilled in the art would incorporate:
1. “the teachings of Murakami to modify Plotnick et al by providing user
interface with metadata containing insertion point identifier for the
purpose of limiting error in splicing alternate contents”; and
2. “the teachings of Sun to modify Plotnick and Murakami by
embedding metadata in real-time for the purpose of accelerating
processing time of the embedded contents with respect to the
capabilities of the devices.”
Ans. 7. We see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and no Reply
was filed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 7 and 14 commensurate in scope, as well as
dependent claims 2–6, 8–13, and 17–19 not separately argued.

B. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16
Claim 16 recites the
[c]omputer-readable storage media as recited in claim 14,
wherein the operations further comprise playing back additional
media content in the single content stream without blocking
playback of the media content.

Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

8
Appellant argues that “[e]ach of the different techniques described by
Plotnick, however, describes providing alternative content when an original
advertisement is blocked through fast-forwarding or skipping of the
original advertisement.” Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis in original). Similarly,
Appellant contends that “the proposed modification of Plotnick to play back
additional media content in the single content stream without blocking
playback of the media content necessarily constitutes an impermissible
modification of the principles of operation of Plotnick.” Appeal Br. 26
(emphasis in original).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Plotnick teaches “the media content [corresponds to] the
presentation of the alternative advertisement including full screen alternate
advertisements, opaque and transparent overlays, and split screens”
(Ans. 10, citing Plotnick ¶¶ 60, 122, 126) and “[an] original ad 1716
superimposed over the alternative ad 1720.” Ans. 10 (citing Plotnick
¶¶ 217–220). Plotnick expressly teaches embodiments in which “the
alternative ad [is] placed in conjunction with the original advertisement in
trick play mode (i.e., fast forward),” stating that “[t]hese embodiments are
preferable as the subscriber can see the original ad and see that they are
actually skipping portions of the ad.” Plotnick ¶ 217. As the subscriber can
still see the original ad during fast forward, there is no “blocking playback of
the media content.” See, e.g., Fig. 17 (illustrating a split screen displaying
both original ad 1712 and alternate ad 1722).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Appeal 2019-002154
Application 14/522,459

9

CONCLUSION
In summary:

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8,
10–14,
16–21
103 Plotnick, Murakami,
Sun
1, 3–8,
10–14,
16–21

2, 9 103 Plotnick, Murakami,
Sun, Craner
2, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16–
21