Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004242 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
16/162,805 10/17/2018 Matthew McDade Jackson 102005.010640 3412
71581 7590 09/02/2021
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
YANG, NIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW McDADE JACKSON and
MATTHEW PATRICK CREEHAN
Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1; Appeal Br. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Oct. 17, 2018;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Nov. 26, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed May 19, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, relates generally
to “[c]ontent playback such as audio or video playback” (Spec. ¶ 1), and
more specifically, to “[m]ethods and systems . . . for repeatedly seeking, in
small increments, to a target playback time of content during content
playback.” Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant’s claims are directed to methods for
synchronizing content during playback by comparing the current playback
time of the content to a target playback time at multiple intervals during
playback of the content, determining if the time difference exceeds a limit
(threshold) and, when the limit is exceeded, seeking to the target playback
time (e.g., skipping some content). See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 11, 12; Abstract. Claims
1, 8, and 14, each directed to a method, are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
comparing, at one or more intervals and during playback
of content, a current playback time of the content to a target
playback time of the content;
determining, for each comparison, whether a difference
between the current playback time and the target playback time
has satisfied a threshold; and
seeking, based on determining that the difference has
satisfied the threshold, to the target playback time.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Aug. 7, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Mar. 19, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Spilo et al. (“Spilo”) US 2006/0002681 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Thomas et al.
(“Thomas”)
US 2017/0353747 A1 Dec. 7, 2017

REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spilo and Thomas. See Final Act. 7–13.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 8 and 14, and dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20) as being
obvious over Spilo and Thomas. See Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 10–16. The
Examiner relies on Spilo to teach performing a comparison at multiple time
intervals (Final Act. 7–8 (citing Spilo ¶ 91)) and Thomas to teach
“comparing a current playback time of the content to a target playback time
of the content” (Final Act. 8 (citing Thomas ¶ 39)), “determining . . .
whether a difference between the current playback time and the target
playback time has satisfied a threshold” (Final Act. 8 (citing Thomas
¶ 166)), and “seeking . . . to the target playback time” (Final Act. 8 (citing
Thomas ¶¶ 7, 160)).

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this
decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
4
Appellant contends that Spilo and Thomas do not teach this disputed
limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply Br. 1–6. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited paragraphs of
Thomas (Thomas ¶ 39, see Final Act. 8) and Spilo (Spilo ¶ 91, see Final Act.
8; Spilo ¶¶ 34, 41, 52–54, see Ans. 15–16) do not teach “comparing, at one
or more intervals and during playback of content, a current playback time of
the content to a target playback time of the content” (Appeal Br. 8 (claim 1)
(Claim App.)). See Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 3–6. More specifically,
Appellant contends that Thomas instead “discloses that synchronization
instructions may be sent to a client device based on determining that client
device is playing out media content within a certain timeframe of one or
more other devices” (Appeal Br. 4; see Reply Br. 3), and Spilo “merely
describe[s] using markers to determine positions within a media stream . . .
to calculate synchronization times between playback devices” (Reply Br. 5;
see Appeal Br. 5–6 and Reply Br. 4–6).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Spilo
and Thomas do not teach or suggest the disputed comparing limitation—
“comparing, at one or more intervals and during playback of content, a
current playback time of the content to a target playback time of the
content.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claim App.)(claim 1); see Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br.
3–6. As pointed out by Appellant, the Examiner-cited portions of neither
Thomas, nor Spilo (supra) teach a playback component (including a seeking
component) of a device playing back content (content fragments) and
comparing a current playback time of the content to a target playback time
of the content (e.g., a timestamp associated with the content). See Spec.
¶¶ 17–18. Instead, both Thomas and Spilo describe synching playback
among multiple other devices (supra). See Thomas ¶¶ 35, 39 (an
Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
5
insufficient degree of synchronicity may be observed by the users of
multiple devices, and a measure of synchronicity (the difference between a
reference playback timestamp and the current playback time of a playback
device) may be reported); Spilo Abstract (“synchronizing digital media
playback at multiple digital media playback devices”). Accordingly, the
comparing and seeking operations proposed by the Examiner do not
reference the target playback time of the specified content at multiple
intervals during playback. The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how
the proposed comparisons described in Thomas and Spilo would suggest to
one of ordinary skill in the art comparing current playback time of the
content to a target playback time of the content during playback of the
content and seeking to the target playback time, as required by claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Spilo and Thomas
teach or suggest the disputed features of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Spilo and Thomas
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 14 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 depend
from and stand with claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–20.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20.

Appeal 2020-004242
Application 16/162,805
6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Spilo, Thomas 1–20

REVERSED