Adobe Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 21, 202014522459 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation