Ex Parte Besehanic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2017

14465510 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
14/465,510 08/21/2014 Jan Besehanic 20004/95246US01 5727
81905 7590 11/03/2017
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
CHEN, CAI Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2017 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):
j flight @ hfzlaw. com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
docketing@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN BESEHANIC
Appeal 2017-006401
Application 14/465,5101
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—21. We have jurisdiction over
the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies The Nielsen Company (US), LLC as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-006401
Application 14/465,510
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to measuring
exposure to streaming media. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method to measure exposure to streaming media
presented by a media device, the method comprising:
capturing, with a video retriever separate from the media
device, an image of a display of the media device;
extracting, with a processor, video metadata from the
image of the display of the media device;
converting, with the processor, the video metadata to an
ID3 metadata format; and
transmitting the ID3 formatted metadata to a central
facility.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Besehanic et al. (WO 2012/177874
A2, pub. Dec. 27, 2012) (hereinafter “Besehanic”) and Seiden et al. (US
2014/0201767 Al, pub. July 17, 2014) (hereinafter “Seiden”). (Final Act.
2.)2
2 Although (1) the heading of the rejection indicates 35 U.S.C. § 102 serves
as its basis, and (2) the claim rejection indicates the claims “as being
anticipated,” the body of the rejection presents an analysis under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)(1). (See Final Act. 2-5.)
2
Appeal 2017-006401
Application 14/465,510
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Besehanic
and Seiden teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation,
“capturing, with a video retriever separate from the media device, an image
of a display of the media device,” and the commensurate limitations recited
in independent claims 11 and 16. (App. Br. 6—17.)
ANALYSIS
In finding the combination of Besehanic and Seiden teaches or
suggests the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Seiden of a camera used to capture a screen shot of a video program on a
second-screen device distracting the user. (Final Act. 3 (citing Seiden
175).) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Seiden of an
arrangement involving users, a television, and a camera, in which the users
may view the television and the camera may view the users. (Ans. 6—7
(citing Seiden | 66).)
Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s own analysis is that the
‘camera is behind the television’” and consequently “[a] camera that is
behind a television cannot capture the display of the television.” (Reply Br.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 15, 2016) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 9, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed Jan. 22, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Dec. 9, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal 2017-006401
Application 14/465,510
2—3, (citing Ans. 6).) Appellant further argues that Seiden describes use of a
camera that employs “facial recognition algorithms to identify the users” and
thus “the camera must have line of sight to the user’s face.” (Reply Br. 3,
(citing Seiden 149).)
We agree with Appellant. While the Examiner finds that “it is
reasonable to recognize that the camera has ability to capture the image of
the user facing the television and also the image of the video content that is
displayed on the television” (Ans. 6—7), the Examiner has not provided an
explanation how the geometry makes this possible using an ordinary
television that does not have a multi-sided display, or some sort of additional
configuration relying on reflected images. Thus, we are persuaded that
Seiden does not teach capturing an image of a display of the media device
with a separate video retriever, as claimed.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1,11, and 16.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1,11, and 16. We also do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—10, 13—15, and 17—21, which claims depend from
claims 1, 11, or 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4