Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13728928 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/728,928 12/27/2012 Alexander Chen DISNEY-0650-US 5200
94468 7590 03/01/2017
DTSNFY FNTFRPRTNFN TNC EXAMINER
c/o Patent Ingenuity, P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
LE, RONG
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
ssimpson@patentingenuity.com
patents@patentingenuity.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER CHEN and JAMES VORIS
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—35. Claim 4 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to providing a first version and a second
version of audio visual content, with the second version having audiovisual
content removed from the first version that is not appropriate for a type of
viewer, such as children. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
storing a first version and a second version of an
audiovisual content file on a single data storage device;
providing the first version and the second version of the
audiovisual content file from the single data storage device to a
user through a playback device,
wherein the second version has audiovisual content that
is removed from the first version, wherein the removed
audiovisual content is deemed not appropriate for a type of
viewer and without a determination as to whether the removed
audiovisual content is appropriate for the user, wherein the first
version has been released in movie theaters, and the second
version has not been released in movie theaters,
wherein the first version is classified according to a first
age appropriate standard,
wherein the second version is classified according to a
second age appropriate standard that has a lesser age
requirement than the first version; receiving an input from the
user on the playback device to play the audiovisual content file;
in response to receiving the input, providing a menu to
allow the user to select the first version or the second version to
play on the playback device; and
based on the user selection, playing the first version or
the second version of the audiovisual content file on the
playback device.
Claims 1, 5, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abecassis ’337 (US 2013/0251337 Al; Sept. 26, 2013)
and Kline (US 2012/0297438 Al; Nov. 22, 2012).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Abecassis ’337, Kline, Abecassis ’178 (US 6,553,178 Bl; Apr. 22, 2003).
2
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
Claims 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abecassis ’337, Kline, and Craner (US 2012/0060181 Al;
Mar. 8, 2012).
Claims 8—13, 23, 26—28, and 33—35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abecassis ’178 and Abecassis ’337.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Logan et al. (US 2008/0092168
Al; Apr. 17, 2008).
Claims 15—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Kline.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Boss et al. (US 2005/0120389 Al;
June 2, 2005)
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, andKatpelly et al. (US 2009/0313546
Al; Dec. 17,2009).
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Craner.
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection—Abecassis ’337 and Kline
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8—9; see
also Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner improperly combined Abecassis ’337
and Kline.
The Examiner finds that the different versions of Kline for the same
movie (e.g., rated “PG” or rated “R”) correspond to the limitation “wherein
3
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
the first version is classified according to a first age appropriate standard,
wherein the second version is classified according to a second age
appropriate standard that has a lesser age requirement than the first version.”
(Non-Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4.) The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious ... to modify Abecassis02 [’337] by
having [a] second version [that] is classified according to a
second age appropriate standard that has a lesser age requirement
than first version as taught by Kline in order to provide a family
friendly version of the requested content.
(Non-Final Act. 6.) We agree with the Examiner.
Abecassis ’337 relates to “an identification of a purchasable item that
is depicted in the video.” (| 2.) In the “Background of the Invention”
section, Abecassis ’337 explains that “DVDs and Blu-rays are ‘optical discs’
capable of storing one full length motion picture in one of two layers” and
include “the capability to play one of a plurality of different content versions
(e.g. a director’s cut or unrated version and an ‘R’ rated versions).” (14.)
Figure 7 of Abecassis ’337 illustrates network 700, including video
providers 711—713 and end users 731—736 (1152), which includes “[t]he
video server’s mass storage random access memory devices 723 for storing a
plurality of variable content videos” (1159). Abecassis ’337 explains that
“[o]nce a video is selected, the entire variable content video, including all
the non-linear segments and the video map, may be transmitted to the user’s
multimedia player,” such that “a sequence of only those segments that are
consistent with a user’s content preferences is transmitted.” (| 178.)
Abecassis ’337 further explains that “the multimedia player need not store
all of the segments, and if all of the segments are stored, they need not all be
stored for more than a transitory time, i.e., the time for a user to desire the
erasure of undesired content,” for example, “a parent downloading an ‘R’
4
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
motion picture, and after viewing it, causing the erasure of those segments
which are inconsistent with a ‘PG’ version.” (Id.)
Kline relates to “delivering different versions of the media content at
substantially the same time through different outputs of a media player.”
(12.) Kline explains that “some parents may have a desire to watch the
movie as a family, expect for certain portions of the movie that contain
unacceptable content” such that “a rated ‘R’ version and a rated ‘PG’
version may be available for a particular movie.” (17.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the different ratings versions of Kline, for example a rated “R”
version and a rated “PG” version, with the network of Abecassis ’337,
having video providers and end users, would improve Abecassis ’337 by
providing different ratings to different audiences. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 6) that modifying Abecassis ’337
to incorporate the different ratings versions of Kline would have been
obvious. Appellants argue that “the Office Action has not explained what the
hypothetical ‘third version’ is and the manner in which the ‘third version’
results from a modification of Abecassis02 [’337]” and “a ‘third version’ is
not recited by claim 1.” (App. Br. 8.) However, Appellants’ arguments do
not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect
to independent claim 1, because the limitation “third version” is recited in
dependent claim 32, which is narrower in scope than independent claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
Appellants further argue that “[g]iven that the principle of operation
of Abecassis02 [’337] is content erasure for space saving purposes, a
modification based on Kline would modify that principle of operation to
remove the content erasure aspect” and, thus, “Abecassis02 [’337] would
operate quite differently and would not have the touted ‘significant
advantage’ of saving space.” (Reply Br. 3.) Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, Abecassis ’337 states “the segments . . . need not all be stored for
more than a transitory time, i.e., the time for a user to desire the erasure of
undesired content” (1178) and accordingly, the erasure of a different movie
version is based on preference, rather than an absolute requirement.
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Abecassis ’337 and
Kline in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5, 31, and 32 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 31, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’337, Kline, and Abecassis ’178
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 2 separately (App. Br. 9), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “[c]laim 2 is
allowable for similar reasons as independent claim 1 since claim 2 depends
from independent claim 1.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments
6
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 from which claim 2
depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’337, Kline, and Craner
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 6, and 7 separately (App. Br. 10), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
“[cjlaims 3, 6, and 7 depend from independent claim 1” and “Appellants
respectfully request that the rejections of claims 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) be withdrawn for similar reasons as independent claim 1.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1 from which claims 3, 6, and 7 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178 and Abecassis ’337.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of claims 8—13,
23, 26—28, and 33—35 separately (App. Br. 10-11), the arguments presented
do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely reiterate the
argument that “Appellants respectfully maintain that the combination of
Abecassis [’178] and Abecassis02 [’337] does not teach ‘store the first
version and the second version on a single data storage device’ as recited by
claim 8” (App. Br. 10) and “[c]laim 33 is allowable for similar reasons as
independent claim 8” (id. at 11). Independent claims 8 and 33 recites
limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1,
7
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
and claims 9-13, 23, 26—28, 34 and 35 depend from claims 8 and 33. We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Logan
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 14 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “[cjlaim 14
depends from independent claim 8” and “Appellants respectfully request that
the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be withdrawn for similar
reasons as independent claim 8.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 8 from which
claim 14 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Kline
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 15—22 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
“[cjlaims 15—22 depend from independent claim 8” and “Appellants
respectfully request that the rejection of claims 15—22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) be withdrawn for similar reasons as independent claim 8.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 8 from which claims 15—22 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
8
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Boss
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 24 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “[cjlaim 24
depends from independent claim 8” and “Appellants respectfully request that
the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be withdrawn for similar
reasons as independent claim 8.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 8 from which
claim 24 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Katpelly
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 25 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “[cjlaim 25
depends from independent claim 8” and “Appellants respectfully request that
the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be withdrawn for similar
reasons as independent claim 8.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 8 from which
claim 25 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Abecassis ’178, Abecassis ’337, and Craner
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 29 and 30 separately (App. Br. 12), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
9
Appeal 2016-005969
Application 13/728,928
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
“[cjlaims 29 and 30 depend from independent claim 8” and “Appellants
respectfully request that the rejections of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) be withdrawn for similar reasons as independent claim 8.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 8 from which claims 29 and 30 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—35 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10