Ex Parte Brockmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

13737097 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/737,097 01/09/2013
24341 7590 09/06/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Alexander Brockmann
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
100284-5030-US 7676
EXAMINER
KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD ALEXANDER BROCKMANN,
JESSE SONG YI TAN, HENDERIKA VOGEL, and
CORNELIS MEERVELD 1
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Active Video
Networks, Inc. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1--4, 6-11, 14--24, 26-28, and 31-36. Claims 5, 12, 13, 25, 29, and 30 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to rendering of an interactive lean-backward
user interface on a television. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with
a dispositive disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for displaying interactive animated assets associated
with entertainment content on a television coupled to a client
device, the television associated with a user, the method
comprising, at a server:
establishing an interactive session between the client
device and the server over a communications network;
in response to establishment of the interactive session,
automatically identifying a plurality of interactive animated
assets to present to the user based upon a user profile, wherein
one or more of the plurality of interactive animated assets are to
be displayed within one or more tiles in a user interface;
generating, for each of the one or more tiles, a tile creation
request including a reference to a source of at least one
interactive animated asset of the plurality of interactive animated
assets to be displayed within the tile;
forming a sequence of encoded video frames, wherein a
respective video frame of the sequence of video frames is formed
by stitching respective frames of the plurality of interactive
2 We refer to the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 20, 2016 ("Final Act.");
the Appeal Brief filed May 22, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed July 2 7, 201 7 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 26, 201 7
("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
animated assets based on the one or more tiles, wherein the
sequence of encoded video frames defines the user interface; and
transmitting the sequence of encoded video frames to the
client device for display.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Elsbree
Santoro
Greenberg
Koopmans
US 2008/0178125 Al
US 2009/0132942 Al
US 2011/0191684 Al
US 2012/0030212 Al
REJECTI0NS 3
The Examiner made the following rejections:
July 24, 2008
May 21, 2009
Aug. 4, 2011
Feb.2,2012
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16-21, 24, 26, 31, 35, and 36 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elsbree. Final
Act. 4--11.
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Elsbree and Koopmans. 4 Final Act. 12-
15.
3 Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b). App. Br. 10-12. Appellants argue independent claim 21 for
reasons presented in connection with claim 1. App. Br. 12. Separate
patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2--4, 6-11, 14--24, 26-28,
and 31-36. Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims
1--4, 6-11, 14--24, 26-28, and 31-36 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4 The Examiner's statement of the rejection (Final Act. 12) contains a
typographical informality in citing "Koopmans et al. (U.S. Publication No.
201/0030212 [sic]; hereinafter 'Koopmans')." We treat this as harmless
error as it is understood that Koopmans pre-grant publication number is
2012/0030212.
3
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
Claims 7, 8, 11, 27, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elsbree and Santoro. Final Act. 15-18.
Claims 15 and 32-34 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Elsbree and Greenberg. Final Act. 18-20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elsbree. We agree with
Appellants' conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
The Examiner finds Elsbree describes the limitations of claim 1,
including the disputed limitation requiring automatically identifying a
plurality of interactive animated assets in response to establishment of the
interaction session. Final Act. 4 ( citing Figs. 3, 7 and ,r,r 31, 32). According
to the Examiner, the disputed limitation is disclosed by Elsbree' s "user
preferences used to determine which information to send" (Final Act. 4,
citing ,r 32) and Elsbree's "tiles offered [which] can be retrieved from a web
source, and interaction with the tile can cause animation/dynamic
information" (Final Act. 4, citing ,r 31 ). The Examiner interprets the phrase
"interactive session" broadly to encompass a connection to services. Ans. 5.
Appellants contend Elsbree describes extracting a package based upon
user preferences (Elsbree ,r 32) and downloading packages to the computer
during expected idle periods (Elsbree ,r 34), not in response to establishing
an interactive session as required by the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has
failed to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning supporting a
4
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
finding that Elsbree describes automatically identifying a plurality of
interactive animated assets in response to establishment of the interaction
session. In order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a prior art reference
must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of
the document (whether expressly or inherently), but must also disclose those
elements "arranged as in the claim." Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, at the server, automatically identifying a
plurality of interactive elements in response to establishment of the
interactive session. Elsbree's media application's user interface provides a
user-selectable offering tile that triggers an application page having a
package with dynamic content (i.e., interactive animated assets). See
Elsbree ,r,r 27, 28, 31 and Fig. 3: 300, 30. However, the package is
downloaded to the computer running the media application, during expected
idle periods, not in response to establishment of the interactive session as
argued by Appellants. App. Br. 11.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, for the same reason, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 21, which includes
substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 9,
10, 14, 16-20, 24, 26, 31, 35, and 36 which stand with their respective base
claims. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11,
15, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the Examiner's
5
Appeal2017-011809
Application 13/737,097
applications of the Koopmans, Santoro, and Greenberg references fail to
cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14,
16-21, 24, 26, 31, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 15,
22, 23, 27, 28, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6