Ex Parte Carney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

10727793 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
101727,793 12/03/2003
71867 7590 09/20/2016
BANNER & WITCO FF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Carney
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.
007412.01080 6787
EXAMINER
SCHNURR, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CARNEY, GREG THOMSON, DAVID de ANDRADE,
MATT MARENGHI, SAMUEL MOREAU, and ELLIOT POGER1
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 33, 39, 43--49, 52, 54--56, 58,
and 60-66. Claims 2-5, 8-12, 15, 17-32, 34--38, 40--42, 50, 51, 57, and 59
have been canceled. App. Br. 15. We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ); see also Ex parte Lemoine, 46
USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify TVWorks, LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "the creation and
presentation of video-on-demand (VOD) content." Spec. i-f 3. In disclosed
embodiments, the VOD content is comprised of multiple VOD clips. Spec.
i-f 18. According to the Specification, these VOD clips may be selected, such
as from a selection presentation or menu, and played back-to-back. Spec.
i-f 19. Further, according to the Specification, the claimed invention allows
for "a user to dynamically create and present a user-specific, passive
viewing presentation." Spec. i-f 20.
Claims 1 and 64 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a user terminal, a request
for a sequence of two or more video clips from a video associated with
a single event;
organizing the sequence of the two or more video clips from the
video associated with the single event into a single video stream for
playback, and related metadata that comprises indices comprising start
and stop time codes for each of the two or more video clips;
linking one of the two or more video clips to a target uniform
resource locator (URL) linking to supplemental information associated
with the one of the two or more video clips; and
transitioning between the two or more video clips during
playback by automatically jumping to an indexed start time code of a
next video clip in the sequence.
64. A system comprising:
a video-content server;
a client device, comprising first non-transitory computer-
readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when
executed by a first processor, cause the client device to:
2
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
request two or more video-content clips from video
content associated with a single event;
receive the two or more video-content clips as a single
video stream for playback that comprises indices comprising
start and stop time codes for each of the two or more video-
content clips; and
automatically jump during playback to an indexed start
time code of a next video clip in the single video stream; and
a system-control device disposed between the video-content
server and the client device, comprising second non-transitory
computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that,
when executed by a second processor, cause the system-control device
to:
link one of the two or more video-content clips to a target
uniform resource locator (URL) linking to supplemental
information associated with the one of the two or more video-
content clips; and
execute defined and stored rules that decide if video-
content clips need to be inserted into a stream and, if so, where
in the stream the insertion will occur,
wherein the defined and stored rules constrain selection of
the video-content clips to be inserted into the stream to segments
from within a single video-content asset.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 61, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja et al. (US 2003/0030752 Al;
Feb. 13, 2003) ("Begeja") and Holtz et al. (US 6,760,916 B2; July 6, 2004)
("Holtz"). Non-Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 33, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, and 52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, and Blackketter et
al. (US 7,197,758 Bl; Mar. 27, 2007) ("Blackketter"). Non-Final Act. 5-7.
3
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
3. Claims 45, 46, 49, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, Blackketter, and Cook et
al. (US 2003/0018966 Al; Jan. 23, 2003) ("Cook"). Non-Final Act. 7-9.
4. Claims 13, 14, 55, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, and Cook. Non-Final
Act. 9-10.
5. Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, Cook, and Logan et al. (US 2005/0005308
Al; Jan. 6, 2005) ("Logan"). Non-Final Act. 10.
6. Claims 60, 62, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, and Logan. Non-Final Act. 10-
11.
7. Claims 65 and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Begeja, Holtz, Logan, Blackketter, and Shiels et al.
(US 5,751,953; May 12, 1998) ("Shiels"). Non-Final Act. 11-14.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofBegeja and
Holtz teaches or suggests, inter alia, "transitioning between the two or more
video clips during playback by automatically jumping to an indexed start
time code of a next video clip in the sequence," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Begeja and
Holtz teaches or suggests, inter alia, one or more computing devices
configured to "detect that the identifiers [(as included in a request for video
clips)] are each associated with a particular video clip," as recited in
claim 33?
4
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Begeja and
Holtz teaches or suggests, inter alia, "a system-control device disposed
between the video-content server and the client device," as recited in
claim 64?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Begeja,
Holtz, Logan, Blackketter, and Shiels teaches or suggests, inter alia,
"transmitting the concatenated video clips to a digital video recorder (DVR)
that stores the concatenated video clips as a single video file," as recited in
claim 65?
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 55, 56, 58, and 60--63
Appellants contend Begeja, as relied on by the Examiner fails to teach
transitioning between two or more video clips during playback by
automatically jumping to an indexed start time code of a next video clip in
the sequence. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants
assert Begeja teaches starting a first video clip using a pointer (start time),
but that Begeja does not teach a transition to a subsequent clip by jumping to
the indexed start time of the subsequent clip. App. Br. 17-18; Reply
Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Begeja teaches that multiple video
clips may be "stitched together" and streamed to the user as one continuous
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 17, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed February 24, 2015
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on December 24, 2014
("Ans."); and the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act."), mailed on
June 13, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken.
5
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
program. Ans. 3 (quoting Begeja if 55). Further, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Begeja teaches the start and end times of the clips are identified
using clip pointers. Ans. 3 (citing Begeja if 46). The Examiner finds,
therefore, as Begeja is playing a video program that has been "stitched
together," the system transitions to a subsequent clip by jumping to the start
time (as identified by the clip pointer) associated with the subsequent clip.
Ans. 3.
Additionally, although not relied upon in sustaining the Examiner's
rejection we note Begeja teaches users can skip between the video clip (i.e.,
assets) or view only portions thereof. Begeja if 25. By allowing the user to
selectively skip to different portions, we determine it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the clip pointers
(indicating a clip start time) to skip to the desired video clip.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Further,
we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 55, 56, 58,
and 60-63, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 41--42.
Claims 33, 39, and 43--47
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 for at least
the same reasons advanced by Appellants regarding claim 1. App. Br. 18.
As discussed supra, we find these arguments unpersuasive of Examiner
error.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Holtz fails
to teach or suggest that one or more computing devices are configured to
6
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
detect that the identifiers (as included in a request for the video clips) are
each associated with a particular clip. App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 4---6.
Although Appellants concede Holtz teaches the use of identifiers, Appellants
contend there is no teaching in Holtz of a computing device configured to
detect that the identifiers are each associated with a particular video clip.
App. Br. 20-21. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in
finding "a video director or editor" in Holtz corresponds to the claimed "one
or more computing devices." Reply Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, as the Examiner
explains, "Begeja [(not Holtz)] explicitly teaches associating an identifier
with each of the video clips and retrieving the video clips from the DVL
[(Digital Video Library)] database 165 using the identifiers." Ans. 3--4
(citing Begeja i-f 38). Thus, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error
as they are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection.
In reply, Appellants respond that Begeja also fails to teach the
disputed limitation (detecting that the identifiers are each associated with a
particular video clip). Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants contend the cited portion
of Begeja uses "program identification to provide segmentation/
identification of commercials and programs." Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellants' contention. As Appellants concede,
Begeja uses program identification associated with the video clips to
determine segmentation of program clips from commercial clips. Further,
Begeja teaches that this segmentation/identification is performed by a
program identification engine (i.e., a computing device). Begeja i-f 38.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 33.
7
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 39 and 43--47, which
depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See
App. Br. 41--42.
Claims 48, 49, 52, and 54
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 48 for at least
the same reasons advanced by Appellants regarding claims 1 and 33. App.
Br. 21-22. As discussed supra, we find these arguments unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
In rejecting claim 48, the Examiner referred to the rejection for
"claim 7." Non-Final Act. 7. Appellants argue the reasoning directed to the
rejection of claim 7 does not apply to claim 48 "at least because claim 48
does not recite a DVR[,]" as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 21.
The Examiner explains: "[t]he detailed rejection contains a
typographical error referring to claim 7. The rejection should read 'see
claim 33' as both claims 33 and 48 contain equivalent limitations." Ans. 4.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's statement and assert claim 48
recites, inter alia, "transmit fast-forward metadata associated with the
advertisement video clip that indicates whether skipping the advertisement
video clip is permitted and time-code metadata comprising indices
comprising start and stop time codes for each of the two or more video clips
and the advertisement video clip," which is not present in claim 33. Reply
Br. 6.
As for the specific limitation identified by Appellants, we note claim
33 recites, in part, "process[ing] fast-forward metadata associated with the
video clip from the video clip sequence to determine whether fast-
8
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
forwarding is permitted during presentation of the video clip" and
"transmit[ ting] the video clip sequence to the user terminal, the video clip
sequence comprising the two or more video clips and the advertisement
video clip." Thus, although claim 33 does not include the exact language
identified by Appellants, we agree with the Examiner that claim 33 includes
equivalent limitations to those found in claim 48.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 48.
Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 49, 52, and 54,
which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued
separately. See App. Br. 41--42.
Claim 64
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Begeja teaches a
system-control device disposed between the video-content server and the
client device. App. Br. 22-24; Reply Br. 7-8. In particular, Appellants
assert the eClips server of Begeja, which the Examiner finds corresponds to
the claimed system-control device, is not disposed between the video server
and client.
9
Appeal2015-003737
Application 10/727,793
Figure 2 of Begeja is illustrative and is reproduced below:
PC
!'DA
S~t Top
OVL Server
: Transfer
{ M
c·w·~-~-~.f"'
t'Meta-·1
! 06 J -----
FUe
Fiie
Transfer
r--~~~:: ~:~~~~~::· .. 1
l Media Analysis i
I ($.Ctltl~ \~tlMgSl, l
· audio