Ex Parte AMIN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13194968 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
13/194,968 07/31/2011 Umesh AMIN 1129.0002 1046
94165 7590 09/19/2017
T enrmrHPatel PP
EXAMINER
9891 Irvine Center Drive PENG, HSIUNGFEI
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
patents @ leonardpatel.com
spatel@leonardpatel.com
mleonard@leonardpatel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UMESH AMIN
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates that “[cjlaims 1—9, 11—14, and 16—21 are the subject of
this appeal.” App. Br. 5. However, under our procedural rule 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.31(c), an appeal is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims
under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by Applicant and
entered by the Office. Accordingly, although not argued by Appellant,
claims 10 and 15 are before us on appeal. Arguments not made are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant's disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
systems and methods for storing and rendering user preference based media
content of a mixed rated media in a secure, efficient, cost effective, and
family friendly viewing manner. Spec. 12.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis and/or labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, at least one user
preference of desired media content of mixed rated media;
[LI] editing out, by the computing device, frames
comprising undesired media content of the mixed rated media,
wherein each of a plurality of frames comprises an associated
rating tag;
[L2] checking each frame, by the computing device, to
determine a rating from the associated rating tag of the
respective frame; and
rendering, by the computing device, the desired media
content according to the received at least one user preference
without the edited out frames.
5. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
reviewing, by a computing device, mixed rated media;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 15, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 4, 2016); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 31, 2015); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed July 31, 2011).
2
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
checking, by the computing device, a rating of media
content;
checking, by the computing device, a change preference
to allow a broader audience when the rating of the media
content is higher than a received user preference;
editing out, by the computing device, frames comprising
undesired media content of the mixed rated media, wherein at
least one frame comprises a rating tag; and
rendering, by the computing device, the media content
when the media content rating is aligned with the received user
preference without the edited out frames.
21. The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
further comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, a request from the
user to display a rationale for a given rating of the mixed rated
media; and
displaying to a user, by the computing device, the
rationale for the mixed rated media to the user and the mixed
rated media with the given rating so the user can decide
whether the mixed rated media is acceptable.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Abecassis US 2001/0041053 A1 Nov. 15, 2001
Hiler US 2007 /0256093 A1 Nov. 1, 2007
Dhawan et al. ("Dhawan") US 8,079,054 B1 Dec. 13, 2011
3
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Abecassis. Ans. 2.
R2. Claims 1—4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abecassis and Dhawan. Ans. 8.
R3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abecassis and Hiler. Ans. 10.
R4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abecassis and Dhawan. Ans. 11.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 14—20), we decide the
appeal of anticipation rejection Rl of claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20 on the
basis of representative claim 5. Further, based on Appellant's arguments
(App. Br. 20—27), we decide the appeal of obviousness rejection R2 of
claims 1—4 on the basis of representative claim 1. We address rejection R2
of separately argued claim 21, infra. App. Br. 27—30.
We address remaining claims 10 and 15 in rejections R3 and R4, not
argued separately, infra.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so that
we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to all contested
claims and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate herein and adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,5,
and 21 for emphasis as follows.
1. $ 102(b) Rejection R1 of Claims 5—9, 11—14, and 16—20
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 14—20) the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Abecassis is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Abecassis expressly or inherently
discloses "[a] computer-implemented method" that includes, inter alia, the
step of "checking, by the computing device, a change preference to allow a
broader audience when the rating of the media content is higher than a
received user preference," as recited in claim 5?
Analysis
Appellant contends:
Abecassis does not check whether a broader audience is
permitted when a content rating is higher than a received user
preference. Instead, Abecassis merely checks whether the
general ratings accepted by a user have changed. . . . The user is
never asked anything about a change preference for specific
content.
5
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
App. Br. 15—16. Appellant specifically contends "Abecassis is completely
silent as to checking a change preference . . . App. Br. 19—20.
We agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 13—14) that Abecassis
discloses the contested limitation. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner's unrebutted factual findings and legal conclusions, which we
incorporate herein and adopt as our own, including that, given the disclosure
of Abecassis, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it is
inherent to check a change preference before children are able to watch a
video with a higher rating than the originally set preference rating. Ans. 13.
We note Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's
findings and legal conclusions.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to
disclose the contested limitation of claim 5, nor do we find error in the
Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 5, and grouped
claims 6—9, 11—14, and 16—20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping,
supra.
2. $103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1—4
Issue 2
Appellant argues (App. Br. 21—27) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Abecassis and Dhawan is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
6
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, steps LI and L2, as recited in
claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant contends Dhawan's teachings "differs from independent
claim 1, which pertains to editing out undesired video content based on the
rating in each frame. Dhawan et al. is merely assigning what users felt to
each frame." App. Br. 25.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because Appellant
attacks the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner cites
Abecassis, not Dhawan, for teaching or suggesting the "editing" limitation
LI. Final Act. 9.
We agree with the Examiner's unrebutted finding (Ans. 14—18) that
the combination of Abecassis and Dhawan teaches or suggests contested
limitations LI and L2. In particular, we agree with the Examiner's detailed
factual findings and legal conclusions, set forth on pages 14 through 18 of
the Answer, which we incorporate herein and adopt as our own. We again
note Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings
and legal conclusions.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the contested
7
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2-4,
which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 21
Issue 3
Appellant argues (App. Br. 27—30) the Examiner's rejection of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Abecassis and Dhawan is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests "[t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1," that further
includes, inter alia, the step of "receiving ... a request from the user to
display a rationale for a given rating," as recited in claim 21?
Analysis
Regarding dependent claim 21, Appellant separately argues Abecassis
does not teach "receiving ... a request from the user to display a rationale
for a given rating." App. Br. 28. Appellant argues "[tjhere is no such
request for a rationale for a rating from a user anywhere in Abecassis." Id.
The Examiner finds, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, that
a request to display a rationale for a given rating reads on Abecassis' request
to display any information related to a given rating. Ans. 18. The Examiner
alternatively finds Abecassis' performance of a keyword search and
displaying a particular subject matter for a given rating by a user can be
reasonably interpreted as a rationale for a given rating. Id. As noted above,
8
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Therefore, on this record we are not
persuaded the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable,
or inconsistent with Appellant's Specification.3 Because Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 21.
4. $103 Rejections R3 and R4 of Claims 10 and 15
In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to
obviousness Rejections R3 and R4 under § 103 of claims 10 and 15,
respectively (see App. Br. 10 et seq.), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims. Arguments not made are waived. See n.l, supra.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
R1 of claims 5—9, 11—14 and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited
prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness
Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 1—4, 10, 15, 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the
rejections.
3 Any special meaning assigned to a term or phrase "must be sufficiently
clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so
understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention."
Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d
1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer
and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary
and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent
in the written description.").
9
Appeal 2017-005699
Application 13/194,968
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10