Ex Parte Amento et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201612144397 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/144,397 06/23/2008 Brian Scott Amento 2007-0973 (00273) 1448 82744 7590 05/19/2016 AT&T Legal Department - JW Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN SCOTT AMENTO, CHRISTOPHER HARRISON, and LARRY STEAD ____________________ Appeal 2014-009882 Application 12/144,397 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 25–48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to annotation based navigation of multimedia content. Spec., Title. Claim 25, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2014-009882 Application 12/144,397 2 25. A multimedia content navigation method, comprising: accessing, by a premises device associated with a user, annotation data associated with the program, wherein the annotation data is indicative of a plurality of chronologically ordered annotations generated by a viewer of the program, wherein a chronological position of an annotation is indicative of a portion of the program being watched when the annotation was created, and wherein the user is authorized by the viewer to access the annotation data; defining annotation criteria including a criterion selected from annotation density criterion and annotation content criterion; and after determining an identified chronological position within the program satisfying the annotation criteria, advancing the user to the identified chronological position; wherein the annotation includes: an image of a frame displayed when the user asserted the annotation button; and an additional annotation element selected from: an audio segment, text, a second image, and a video segment. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Evans Horowitz et al. Badoiu et al. King US 2002/0099947 A1 US 2009/0164904 A1 US 2009/0210779 A1 US 2010/0278453 A1 July 25, 2002 June 25, 2009 Aug. 20, 2009 Nov. 4, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 25–28, 31–39, 42, 43, 45, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Badoiu and Evans. Final Act. 3– 5. Appeal 2014-009882 Application 12/144,397 3 Claims 29, 40, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Badoiu, Evans, and Horowitz. Final Act. 6. Claims 30, 41, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Badoiu, Evans, and King. Final Act. 6–7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–7) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 7) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants contend Badoiu does not teach “an annotation that includes an image of a frame displayed when the user asserted an annotation button and an additional annotation element where the additional element is an audio segment, text, a second image, or a video segment.” App. Br. 5. Appellants argue claim 1 requires, and Badoiu fails to disclose, a dynamic relationship between an image and the annotation wherein the image is an image of the frame that was being displayed at the time the user asserted an annotation button. Id. Instead, according to Appellants, Badoiu provides a static element, a “thumbnail,” representing each of the frames of the annotation clip. Id. The Examiner responds by finding Badoiu’s annotations with their associated frames, and the user selection of a frame region that Appeal 2014-009882 Application 12/144,397 4 initiates creation of the annotation, teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 25. Ans. 7. Appellants’ argument that the thumbnail, 850 A or B, must have a dynamic relationship is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 25, which omits any such requirement. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Instead, claim 25 only requires a temporal relationship, such that the annotation include “an image of a frame displayed when the user asserted the annotation button.” Claim 25, emphasis added. That is, there is no causation requirement whereby user assertion of the annotation button initiates storage of a displayed image frame together with an additional annotation element as a unified data structure. Instead, we agree with the Examiner in finding Badoiu’s annotation definition 704 and thumbnails 850, 860, and 870 teach the images of claim 25. We do not find it relevant that Badoiu uses the term “annotation” to refer to only the information added by the user (i.e., the claimed “additional annotation element”) rather than in combination with the displayed frame image. Because Badoiu discloses all of the elements of Appellants’ “annotation” as defined by claim 25 (i.e., the recited image and additional annotation element), the reference teaches or suggests the disputed limitation even though Badoiu uses a different labeling convention or nomenclature for those elements. Accordingly, Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 25, 34, and 42 and, for the same reasons, the rejections Appeal 2014-009882 Application 12/144,397 5 of dependent claims 26–33, 35–41, and 43–48, which are not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–48 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation