Dominik Hofmann

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14201435 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
14/201,435 03/07/2014 Dominik Hofmann 0124-013002 1002
135246 7590 10/31/2019
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HUANG, FRANK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOMINIK HOFMANN
Appeal 2019-000667
Application 14/201,435
Technology Center 2400
Before JON M. JURGOVAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 15–20, which constitute
all of the claims pending in the current application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 Twitter,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000667
Application 14/201,435

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “capturing, sharing, viewing, and/or
displaying one or more video segments.” Spec. ¶ 17. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12,
13, and 15–20 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br.
9–12. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A system, comprising:
an application module configured to execute on a
computer processor to trigger the computer processor to:
receive at least a portion of a stream of content
including a video vignette, the stream of content associated with
a context account of a social media platform, the video vignette
being associated with a set of thumbnail images;
initiate playback of the video vignette within a
scroll area of a display, the playback including triggering display
of a first thumbnail image of the set of thumbnail images in a first
position of the video vignette within the scroll area as a
representation of the video vignette;
scroll, in response to detecting a scroll input, the
video vignette from the first position within the scroll area to a
second position within the scroll area different from the first
position within the scroll area; and
trigger display, as the representation of the video
vignette, a second thumbnail image of the set of thumbnail
images according to the second position of the video vignette
within the scroll area; and
a user interface module configured to:
detect the scroll input associated with the scroll area
during the playback of the video vignette.
Appeal 2019-000667
Application 14/201,435

3
References and Rejection2
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as obvious in view of Becker (US 2012/0046770 A1; Feb. 23,
2012) and Rossman (US 2013/0080895 A1; Mar. 28, 2013). Final Act. 4.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites a device (such as a mobile phone) configured to
display a first thumbnail image in a first position of a video vignette within a
scroll area, and “scroll, in response to detecting a scroll input, the video
vignette from the first position within the scroll area to a second position
within the scroll area different from the first position within the scroll area.”
Appellant argues the combination of Rossman and Becker does not teach or
suggest this limitation, because “Rossman mentions that ‘still image frames
directly derived from the compressed preview video files may be generated,’
but does not disclose or suggest any ‘scroll area,’ let alone a scroll area in
which a video vignette assumes more than one position.” Appeal Br. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
Rossman teaches scrolling “the video vignette from the first position within
the scroll area to a second position within the scroll area different from the
first positon within the scroll area (Fig. 1, i.e thumbnail 142 and 144).”
Final Act. 10–11. As correctly noted by Appellant, however, “each of the
thumbnail images 142 and 144 in Rossman relates to a different video”
(Appeal Br. 6), because the reference teaches displaying images from “two
different source video files” (Rossman ¶ 35). Rossman can display “fast-

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 19.
Appeal 2019-000667
Application 14/201,435

4
forward viewing” of each of these video files, but the Examiner does not
identify that Rossman will scroll (i.e., move) a given video vignette to
different positions within the scroll area (i.e., across different locations
within the scroll area of the display), as required by claim 1. Rossman ¶ 43;
see Ans. 15–19. Nor do we see such a teaching in the cited portions of
Rossman. Compare Rossman ¶ 40 (“when the user swipes one or more of
the thumbnail images (142, 144) displayed on the touch sensitive display
screen (132), said the application software will detect this swiping and
change the rate of playing of the preview video file on the display screen
according to the speed and/or direction of the swipe.”); with Spec. ¶ 106 (“In
STEP 620, the representation of the video vignette is moved through the
scroll area in response to detecting the scroll input” as “the position of the
representation in the scroll area dictates the appearance of the
representation.”).
Based on the foregoing, we find the Examiner errs in relying on
Rossman for teaching or suggesting the recited “scroll[ing] . . . the video
vignette from the first position within the scroll area to a second position
within the scroll area different from the first position within the scroll area.”
The Examiner does not rely on Becker for this limitation. See Final Act. 7–
11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection:
of independent claim 1; of independent claims 8 and 15 which recite similar
limitations; of the dependent claims.
Appeal 2019-000667
Application 14/201,435

5
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 8,
12, 13, and
15–20
§ 103(a) Becker, Rossman 1, 5, 6, 8,
12, 13, and
15–20

REVERSED