Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2021

2020002064 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2021)

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.
15/792,217 10/24/2017 Stuart Gilbert 170116-1101 9097
71247 7590 08/11/2021
Client 170101 c/o
THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL RD SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
TELAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2021 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):
docketing@thip.law
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STUART GILBERT
____________

Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, 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 1, 3–9, 11–19, and 21–23. Claims 2,
10, and 20 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Amazon
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

2
The present invention relates generally to enhancing video content
with extrinsic data, such as a timeline component showing a sequence of
scenes corresponding to a selected cast member. See Spec., Abst.
Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying
a program that, when executed in at least one computing device,
causes the at least one computing device to at least:
cause a video content feature to be rendered on a display;
cause a user interface to be rendered on top of the video
content feature on the display, the user interface configured to present
a plurality of cast member images, individual ones of the plurality of
cast member images corresponding to a respective cast member in the
video content feature;
update the user interface to present a timeline visually
indicating a subset of scenes, individual scenes of the subset of scenes
being a different length;
receive a selection of one of the subset of scenes, the
subset of scenes corresponding to at least one scene in the timeline
other than a current scene;
receive a selection of a jump component of the user
interface; and
in response to selection of the jump component, play the
video content feature from the one of the subset of scenes selected.

21. The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one
computing device is further configured to at least render a preview
component on the user interface, the preview component comprising
an image corresponding to the one of the subset of scenes selected.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Thomas (US 2002/0042920 A1;
Apr. 11, 2002), Jordan (US 2011/0289534 A1; Nov. 24, 2011), Kweon (US
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

3
2009/0199098 A1; Aug. 6, 2009), and Reid (US 7,444,593 B1; Oct. 28,
2008). Final Act. 9–17.
R2. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Jordan, Kweon, Reid, and
Ferman (US 2004/0197088 A1; Oct. 7, 2004). Final Act. 17–19.
R3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Thomas, Jordan, Kweon, Reid, and Cudak (US
2015/0235672 A1; Aug. 20, 2015). Final Act. 19–20.
R4. Claims 8, 11, 12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Kweon, and
Reid. Final Act. 21–28.
R5. Claims 9 and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Kweon, Reid, and Ferman.
Final Act. 28–36.
R6. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Kweon, Reid, and Isaias (US
2011/0154405 A1; June 23, 2011). Final Act. 37–38.
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
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14
First, Appellant contends that “Kweon is silent as to a timeline that
would visually indicate a length of the tags . . . let alone . . . scenes being a
different length.’” Appeal Br. 7. We disagree with Appellant.
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

4
We note that Appellant concedes that “Kweon discloses a ‘time line
60’” visually indicating a subset of scenes (see Appeal Br. 11), but
emphasizes that Kweon does not teach that the subset of scenes are of
different lengths. However, we point out that the Examiner relies upon Reid,
not Kweon, to teach individual scenes being a different length. See Final
Act. 14. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
argument against Kweon separately from Reid does not persuasively rebut
the combination made by the Examiner. See Ans. 4–6. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA
1981).
Second, Appellant contends that “Reid fails to remedy the deficiency
of the rejection . . . [because] [t]he length of a clip as depicted 237 in
FIG. 4A of Reid does not correspond with a scene.” Id. at 9 (emphasis
added)(citations omitted). In essence, Appellant argues that Reid does not
teach the claimed “scenes being a different length” because Reid refers to
clips, which arguably are not the same as scenes.
We agree with the Examiner that “one of ordinary skill in the art . . .
would recognize that clips are analogous to scenes” (Ans. 7), and that
“Fig 4A of Reid illustrates a graphical user interface including
representations of clips, with each representation including information
indicating the length of the [respective] clip.” Id. at 6. Here, Appellant fails
to demonstrate how Reid’s clips are necessarily distinguishable from a
scene. For example, Reid discloses that a “[p]ortion or portions of
sequential information are also referred to as a ‘clip,’ such as a continuum of
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

5
segments, frames, blocks or footage.” Reid 1:57–59. Similarly, we find the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a “scene” is a sequence of continuous
action.
Because Appellant has not persuasively distinguish Reid’s “clips”
from the claimed “scenes” and Reid teaches clips with different lengths (see
Reid Fig. 4a) we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that Reid fails to
teach scenes with different lengths. In any case, the other cited reference,
Kweon, clearly teaches scenes, i.e., visually displaying “specific multimedia
content sections (such as an impressive scene, an important scene, an actor’s
scene, and a scene in which specific music is played).” Kweon ¶ 44. We are
reminded that the Examiner is relying on the combined teachings of Kweon
and Reid to teach a timeline visually indicating a subset of scenes, individual
scenes of the subset of scenes being a different length. Thus, we find
unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned arguments, given the combined
teachings outlined above.
Third, Appellant contends that “a ‘user select[ing a] thumbnail image’
[in Kweon] does not show or suggest ‘a selection of a jump component.’ . . .
[because] the ‘jump component’ as claimed is not the ‘timeline’ or one of
the ‘subset of scenes.’” Appeal Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant.
We note that Appellant’s Specification fails to specifically limit the
“jump component” to any particular object. Instead, the “jump component”
is merely described as a component that “when selected, may cause the
video content feature 139 to begin playback or be cued for playback.” Spec.
¶ 61. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]he [S]pecification
provides a description of a ‘jump component’ that is non-limiting.” Ans. 8.
Additionally, claim 1 fails to distinguish the “jump component” from the
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

6
scene components. As such, we broadly, but reasonably, interpret the
claimed “jump component” as any element that, when selected, enables
playback of content.
In Kweon, “[w]hen the user selects one of the thumbnail images (as
shown in FIG. 10), a multimedia content section corresponding to the
selected thumbnail images is reproduced (as shown in FIG. 11).” Kweon
¶ 48. In other words, Kweon teaches that upon selection of a thumbnail, the
multimedia content is played. As such, the claimed “in response to selection
of the jump component, play the video content” reads on Kweon’s selection
of a thumbnail.
Accordingly, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that a user
selecting a thumbnail image does not show or suggest a selection of a jump
component, given our findings above.
Finally, Appellant contends that the Examiner is using hindsight
because the Examiner is “relying on claim 1 as a roadmap for selecting and
modifying the teachings” (Appeal Br. 11) and “[i]n view of the ‘display of
the thumbnail images’ and ‘time line 60’ teachings of Kweon, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the
combination of Kweon, Reid.” Id. at 12 (citations omitted). We disagree
with Appellant.
As noted by the Examiner (see Ans. 9), “[a]ny judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

7
(CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner’s findings rest on a factual basis.
Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s
rejection is based upon improper hindsight, given the factual basis outlined.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over at least
Kweon and Reid, likewise with the rejection of dependent claims 3–7, 9, and
11–14, which are not argued separately with particularity.

Claims 15–19
Along with the arguments made above, which we find unpersuasive,
Appellant additionally contends that in Ferman “[t]he game is played back
in summary mode, just displaying the program summary segments do not
show or suggest ‘a selection of a jump component.” Appeal Br. 27–28
(citations omitted).
Appellant’s specific arguments are directed to Ferman, while the
contested findings are based on the collective teachings of the references,
i.e., Kweon and Ferman. As noted above, we find that Kweon teaches a
“jump component.” Thus, Appellant’s arguments do not take into account
what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test
for 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
Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

8
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citations
omitted). This reasoning is applicable here.
For at least this reason, we do not see any reversible error and we
sustain the rejection of claims 15–19.

Claims 21–23
Appellant contends that “Kweon does not describe that the ‘views
showing a series of screens’ or the user selecting one of the thumbnail
images (as shown in FIG. 10 of Kweon) would necessarily show or suggest a
‘jump component’ and a ‘preview component.’” Appeal Br. 21. We
disagree with Appellant.
As noted by the Examiner, “[t]he specification provides a description
of a ‘preview component’ that is non-limiting.” Ans. 14. For example,
Appellant’s Specification states that “[a] preview component 232 may allow
the user to see a title for the scene and/or an image for the scene.” Spec.
¶ 58. Similarly, Kweon discloses “[t]he section information 25a to 25e of
the retrieved multimedia content sections is summary information of the
multimedia content series and includes, for example, a thumbnail image.”
Kweon ¶ 47. As such, we find that the claimed “preview component” reads
on Kweon’s thumbnail images, similar to the “jump component” discussed
above. We further find that claim 21 does not necessarily require that the
“jump component” and the “preview component” be separate and distinct
components.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-002064
Application 15/792,217

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–9, 11–19, and 21–23 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7, 13 103 Thomas, Jordan,
Kweon, Reid
1, 3, 7, 13
4, 5 103 Thomas, Jordan,
Kweon, Reid,
Ferman
4, 5
6 103 Thomas, Jordan,
Kweon, Reid,
Cudak
6
8, 11, 12,
14, 21
103 Thomas, Kweon,
Reid
8, 11, 12,
14, 21

9, 15–19 103 Thomas, Kweon,
Reid, Ferman
9, 15–19
22, 23 103 Thomas, Kweon,
Reid, Isaias
22, 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9,
11–19,
21–23

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

AFFIRMED