Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2020002789 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
15/272,382 09/21/2016 Stephen O. LEMAY 106842147400
(P30618US1)
4159
161038 7590 12/04/2020
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
SONG, DAEHO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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@kuba-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN O. LEMAY, GRAHAM R. CLARKE, and
MARCOS ALONSO-RUIZ
____________________

Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection
of claims 1–24. Oral arguments were heard on November 9, 2020. A
transcript of the hearing was mailed November 23, 2020. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies
Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
content scrubber bar for navigating and playing content. Spec. ¶ 2. In a
disclosed embodiment, the scrubber bar includes one or more indications of
time that are based on the current time of day and the remaining duration of
the content being presented. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 122. Appellant’s Figure 6B is
illustrative and is reproduced below:

Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

3
Figure 6B illustrates a scrubber bar presented with the claimed
playback time indications. See Spec. ¶¶ 13, 127. As shown in Figure 6B, in
response to detecting a touch (603) on a touch-sensitive surface (451), a
scrubber bar (606) is displayed (i.e., overlaid) a content item being presented
on display (514). Spec. ¶ 127. Included on scrubber bar (606) is playhead
(608), which provides “a visual indication of the current playback position
within the content item.” Spec. ¶ 127. Additionally, scrubber bar (606)
includes a playback time indication (610) that indicates the current time
of day (as shown in clock (604)). Spec. ¶ 127. Scrubber bar (606) further
includes another playback time indication (612) that represents the time at
which playback of the content item will complete. Spec. ¶ 127. As shown
in the example of Figure 6B, when played back at 1X speed, the content will
end at 4:50, indicating there are 80 minutes remaining (i.e., 80 minutes from
3:30 is 4:50). Spec. ¶ 127.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
at an electronic device that is in communication with a
display and one or more input devices:
displaying, on the display, a playback user interface that is
configured to playback content on the electronic device; and
while displaying the playback user interface that is
configured to playback the content on the electronic device,
displaying, on the display, a scrubber bar for navigating through
the content, wherein the scrubber bar includes:
a visual indication of a current playback position within a
content item currently displayed in the playback user interface;
and
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

4
one or more playback time indications, wherein a
respective playback time indication of the one or more playback
time indications is based on:
a current time of day at the electronic device, and
a remaining duration of the content item, wherein
the remaining duration comprises an amount of time that
it will take to play the content item from the current
playback position to an end of the content item at a
respective content playback speed.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davydov et al. (US 2012/0050185 A1; Mar. 1, 2012)
(“Davydov”) and Vallone et al. (US 2012/0192073 A1; July 26, 2012)
(“Vallone”). Final Act. 4–12.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant asserts the Examiner’s proposed combination of Davydov
and Vallone fails to teach the claimed playback time indication that is based
on both the current time of day and the remaining duration of the content
item. Appeal Br. 4–18; Reply Br. 2–6. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s mapping from Vallone is unclear and, moreover, Vallone, as
relied on by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest the claimed playback time
indication.

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 6, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 27, 2020
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 30, 2019 (“Ans.”);
Transcript of Oral Hearing held November 9, 2020 (“Transcript” mailed
Nov. 23, 2020), and the Final Office Action, mailed February 26, 2019
(“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

5
We begin our analysis with a brief review of Figure 26 of Vallone,
relied on by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5), which is
reproduced below:

Figure 26 of Vallone illustrates a trick play bar overlaid on program
material. Vallone ¶ 48. As shown, Figure 26 of Vallone a trick play bar
(2601) is overlaid the content being displayed. Vallone ¶ 148. In the
embodiment of Figure 26, the content is live video. Vallone ¶ 148. Trick
play bar (2601) includes time indications (2609, 2610) located on the left
and right ends of the bar. Vallone ¶ 149. Trick play bar (2601) further
includes time marks (2603, 2604) that provide a visual indication of a time
increment. Vallone ¶ 149. As shown in Figure 26, time marks (2603, 2604)
are in 15 minute increments. Still further, trick play bar (2601) includes
cache bar (2602) that indicates how much circular cache is filled. Vallone
¶ 149. Slider (2605) moves along trick play bar (2601) and indicates, along
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

6
with position indicator (2608) a current position within the program
material. Vallone ¶ 150. In addition, mode indicator (2606) is positioned
below slider (2605) and indicates the particular mode of operation (e.g.,
play, rewind, fast-forward, 1X, 2X, etc.). Vallone ¶ 150. According to
Vallone, trick play bar (2601) “visually informs the user of the size of the
circular program cache . . . [and] how much of the cache is filled.” Vallone
¶ 148. Additionally, Vallone describes the current time “is always between
the time indicated at right hand side 2610 of the trick play bar 2601 minus
the time increment of the middle time mark 2604 when watching live
television.” Vallone ¶ 149.
“When the user watches a program that has been recorded, the trick
play bar time indicator on the right hand side 2610 represents the total time
of the program recording.” Vallone ¶ 154. In addition, when viewing a
stored program, cache bar (2602) fills the entire trick play bar (2601).
Vallone ¶ 154. Further, Vallone describes slider (2605) “displays the
amount of time (e.g., one hour) in the program that the user is at.” Vallone
¶ 154.
Appellant asserts, as illustrated in Figure 26 of Vallone and described
in Vallone’s specification, time indicator (2605) indicates a playback
position of the slider and corresponds to “the broadcast time of the current
playback position.” Appeal Br. 14. In addition, time indications (2609,
2610) merely indicate the total length of the play bar and “refer to the real
world time that the content item was or will be broadcast.” Appeal Br. 14–
15. Appellant argues Vallone does not describe how the time indicators
(2609, 2610) are selected, but suggest they represent the available cache
size. Appeal Br. 15. More particularly, Appellant argues Vallone does not
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

7
teach or suggest “that the time indication at the right hand side 2610 of the
play bar is the time at which playback of the content item will end.” Reply
Br. 3. Still further, Appellant argues even if the time indication (2610) were
the time at which playback of the content item will end, time indication
(2610) is not based on the current time of day at the device and the
remaining duration of the content item. Reply Br. 4.
In the Answer, the Examiner relies on the scenario described in
Vallone in which the user is watching live television. Ans. 4 (citing Vallone
¶ 149). The Examiner explains:
Vallone states, “[t]he current time is always between the time
indicated at right hand side 2610 of the trick play bar 2601 minus
the increment of the middle time mark 2604 when watching live
television” (see [0149] & Fig. 26). For example, a current time
for a time mark 2603 is calculated by which a time for a playback
time indication 2610 (i.e. 11:30) minus 45 minutes (i.e. three
times by 15 minutes increments). Thus, the current time for the
time mark 2603 is 10:45 in Fig. 26. In the same manner, a current
time for a time mark 2604 would be 11:00 in Fig. 26. Further, a
slider 2605 indicates to include a current time of a current
playback position within a current content, which is 11:19 (see
[0150] & Fig. 26). The remaining duration of the content is 11
minutes, and the playback time indication 2610 displays 11:30
because the playback of the content will end at 11:30 from the
current time of playback (i.e. 11:19 plus 11 minutes of remaining
duration).
Ans. 4.
The Examiner’s explanation and reasoning is premised on time
indication (2610) of Vallone’s Figure 26 indicating the time at which the
content will end. Although Vallone may suggest that the current time of day
at the device is 11:19, the Examiner has not identified, nor do we find,
within Vallone that the content will end (in the example related to Figure 26
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

8
of Vallone) at 11:30, i.e., the time indicated by time indication (2610).
Instead, Vallone describes the length of trick play bar (2601) in terms of the
time difference between time indications (2610) and (2609). See Vallone
¶ 149. Although Vallone also describes that the current time is between the
time indicated by time indication (2610) and time increment (2604) (see
Vallone ¶ 149), Vallone does not indicate that the content being viewed (in
this case, live television) will end at the time indicated by (2610). For us to
sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible
speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to cure the deficiencies
in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967). Moreover, even when a user is watching recorded
content (see Vallone ¶ 154), it is unclear (and the Examiner has not provided
any explanation) that time indication (2610) would be based on (i) a current
time of day, and (ii) a remaining duration of the content item at a particular
playback speed.
Because we find it dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably
suggests a playback time indication based on a current time of day and
the remaining duration of a content item as recited in claim 1 (and
commensurately recited in independent claims 23 and 24), we do not address
other issues raised by Appellant’s arguments related to these claims. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For
Appeal 2020-002789
Application 15/272,382

9
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 23 and 24, which recite commensurate limitations. In addition, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–22, which depend directly
or indirectly from claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 103 Davydov, Vallone 1–24

REVERSED