Alphonso Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2020

15941561 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 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.
15/941,561 03/30/2018 Lampros KALAMPOUKAS 689107-19US 7130
570 7590 10/14/2020
PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
TWO COMMERCE SQUARE
2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
PENG, HSIUNGFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2020 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):
usptomail@panitchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAMPROS KALAMPOUKAS, MANISH GUPTA, and
ZHENGXIANG PAN

Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561
Technology Center 2400

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14, which constitute all of the
pending claims.2 Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification filed Mar. 30, 2018 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Feb. 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
May 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Aug. 27, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Sept. 30, 2019 (Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Alphonso Inc. as the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

2
An oral hearing was held in this appeal on September 23, 2020. A transcript
of the oral hearing will be entered into the record in due course.
We reverse.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for automatically detecting the presence of potential
commercials in a video data stream. Spec., 2:11–12.
Figure 1 reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates a video data stream including segments of program
type content with interspersed commercial breaks (C1–C5) each having (i)
an expected time length being an integer multiple of a first predetermined
time and (ii) an overall time length not exceeding a second predetermined
time length of predetermined lengths. Id. at 2:11–14, 4:22–27.

In particular, responsive to receiving the video data stream, a video
processing engine records the time of each transition detected in the received
data stream to calculate time differences between successive transitions
therein. Id. at 2:14–16. For each of the calculated time differences being an
integer multiple of a first predetermined time length, and having an overall
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

3
time that does not exceed a second predetermined time length, the video
processing engine sends the content thereof to a content processing platform,
which performs recognition processing thereon to identify the calculated
time difference as a potential commercial. Id. at 2:16–20.

Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. An automated method of detecting the presence of potential
commercials in a video data stream that contains (i) segments of
program type content, and (ii) commercial content, wherein the
commercial content appears in a commercial break between segments
of program type content, each commercial break including one or
more commercials, wherein each of the commercials has an expected
time length that is an integer multiple of a first predetermined time
length, and has an overall time length that is equal to or less than a
second predetermined time length, the method comprising:
(a) receiving, by a video processing engine, a video data stream;
(b) detecting, by the video processing engine, transitions in the
audio or video of the video data stream and recording the time of the
transitions;
(c) calculating for each transition, by the video processing
engine using the time of the transitions, time differences between one
or more successive transitions;
(d) identifying, by the video processing engine, any time
differences between the one or more successive transitions that are an
integer multiple of the first predetermined time length, and that have
an overall time length that is equal to or less than the second
predetermined time length, wherein the contents of the video data
stream associated with the identified time differences are potential
commercials; and
(e) electronically sending the contents of the video data stream
associated with the identified time differences to a content processing
platform that performs recognition processing of the contents to
identify any potential commercials.

Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App).
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Zigmond US 2006/0041902 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Chen US 7,400,364 B2 July 15, 2008
Muller US 2017/0155973 A1 June 1, 2017

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6–8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chen and Muller.
Final Act. 2–5.
The Examiner rejects claims 2–5, 9, and 11–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chen, Muller, and
Zigmond. Final Act. 5–6.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5–20 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–7.4
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Chen and Muller teaches or suggests sending to a content
processing platform time differences between successive transitions in a
video data stream wherein the time differences are identified as potential
commercials, as recited in independent claims 1, and 8. Appeal Br. 10. In

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

5
particular, Appellant argues that Chen’s disclosure of calculating an integer-
multiple of a predetermined time length of a commercial, after a user
activates a surfing process, to allow the user to automatically surf back to an
original program upon the multiple time length has elapsed does not teach
the disputed claim limitations. Id. at 7 (citing Chen 6:49–7:3). Further,
Appellant argues that although Chen discloses a timer-driven embodiment
that could be modified to perform automatic detection of a transition
identifying the potential start point of a commercial, Chen would still lack
the disputed limitations. Id. at 10–11. According to Appellant, Chen’s
integer multiple is used to extend the surf-away time by a multiple of a
standard length commercial whereas the claimed integer multiple is used to
test whether a time difference meets the criteria for the first and second
predetermined lengths of time. Id. at 11. Furthermore, Appellant argues that
the Examiner’s reliance upon Muller to teach a “content processing
platform” would not only fail to remedy the noted deficiencies in Chen, but
the proposed combination of Muller with Chen would also amount to
impermissible hindsight. Id. at 11–12. Therefore, Appellant submits that
Chen’s disclosed processes for allowing a user to skip commercials based on
the determined length thereof do not teach or suggest that the contents of the
commercials should be captured for recognition processing. Id. at 12.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Chen discloses a method and system for allowing a user to automatically
surf back to a primary program after the user surfed therefrom to a
secondary program to avoid commercials embedded within the primary
program. Chen, Abstr., 3:16–20. In particular, after the user activates a
surfing process to avoid a detected commercial embedded within the
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

6
primary broadcast program being watched by the user, the system calculates
an integer-multiple of a predetermined time length of the commercial. Id. at
5:55–64, 6:1–5, 6:59–7:3. Upon detecting that the calculated time length for
the commercial has elapsed, a transition detector allows the user to
automatically surf back to the original program. Id. Likewise, Chen’s system
is capable of being used to avoid more successive commercials embedded
within the primary broadcast program. Id.
The disputed claim limitations require identifying in a video data
stream time differences between successive transitions that (i) are an integer-
multiple of a first predetermined time length and (ii) have an overall time
length that does not exceed a second predetermined time length. We agree
with the Examiner that Figure 5 of Chen depicts a video stream (50)
including main program (51) and commercials (52) separated by transitions
(53), each successive pair of transitions being separated by time differences
(54, T), which are an integer multiple (N) of a first pre-determined time
length (e.g., T=30 seconds), and have an overall time length (NT, e.g., N=4)
that does not exceed a second predetermined time length (120 sec.). Ans. 7–
8 (citing Chen Fig. 5, 5:55–62, 6:4–62).
The disputed claim limitations further require sending the identified
time differences to perform recognition processing as a potential
commercial. We agree with Appellant that because Chen already determines
the identified time difference as a commercial, which the user viewing the
main broadcast program seeks to avoid, Chen therefore does not perform the
requisite recognition processing. Appeal Br. 12. Instead, Chen’s further
processing of the identified time difference pertains to a total amount of time
allotted to the user to surf away from the main broadcast program before
Appeal 2020-000014
Application 15/941,561

7
being automatically surfed back thereto. We consequently find error in
Examiner’s dismissal of the recognition processing limitation as a mere
statement of intended use. Ans. 9. Because Appellant has shown at least one
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, we do not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1
and 8, each of which includes the argued disputed limitations. Likewise, we
do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2–7, and 9–14, which also
recite the disputed limitation.
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–8, 13, 14 103 Chen, Muller 1, 6–8, 13, 14
2–5, 9, 11 103 Chen, Muller, Zigmond 2–5, 9, 11
Overall Outcome 1–14

REVERSED