Ex Parte Curry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2019

14144778 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/144,778 12/31/2013
101198 7590 03/20/2019
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Clifford Curry
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.
25832.302 (L302) 3500
EXAMINER
PARCHER, DANIEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2019 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@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFFORD CURRY, MATTHEW DARBY, ANDREY
DORONICHEV, BRYCE GIBSON REID, KEVIN GREENE, ANDREW
JANI CH, ALAN JOYCE, TAEHO KO, and JUSTIN LEWIS 1
Appeal2018-001922
Application 14/144,778
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
DAVIS J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-21, 23-26, 28-30, and 32-34,
all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 5, 22, 27, and 31
are canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants name Google Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
The present invention relates generally to providing an adjustable
video player (see Spec., Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
providing, by an electronic device, a content item player
for playback of a content item in a first portion of a user interface (UI)
of an application executed on the electronic device;
receiving a first indication of a first gesture made with
respect to the first portion of the UI for playback of the content item,
the first gesture corresponding to an action of minimizing the content
item player;
in response to receiving the first indication, minimizing
the content item player into a mini-player shown on the application UI
without interrupting the playback of the content item in the content
item player, wherein the mini-player is positioned with a pre-
determined size and position within the application UI and relative to
the application UI; and
receiving a second indication of a second gesture made
with respect to the mini-player;
responsive to the second gesture comprising a
minimization gesture to dismiss the miniplayer, stopping playback of
the content item and removing the mini-player from the application UI
on the electronic device; and
responsive to the second gesture comprising a
maximization gesture to maximize the mini-player, returning the
content item player to an original presentation format in the
application UI, the original presentation format comprising
presentation in the first portion of the UI of the application.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1--4, 6, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Thiyagarajan (US 2011/0113354 Al;
published May 12, 2011), Pletcher (US 6,765,592 Bl; issued July 20, 2004),
and Gmail (How to use the video and audio chat function in gmail, available
2
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnvm38Qfrt8) (Final Act. 2-14);
R2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Thiyagarajan, Pletcher, Gmail, and Billings (US 2013/0290848 Al;
published Oct. 31, 2013) (Final Act. 22-23); and
R3. Claims 7-10, 16, 21, 23-26, 28-30, and 32-34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thiyagarajan, Pletcher, Gmail in
combination with various other prior art (see Final Act. 14--28).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 103
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-21, 23-26, 28-30, and 32-34
Appellants contend that "Pletcher does not teach or suggest returning
a content item player to an original presentation format in the application
UI, the original presentation format comprising presentation in the first
portion of the UI of the application" (App. Br. 10), because "Pletcher is
silent with regard to the specific placement of the sub-window when it is re-
docked" (id. at 11 ).
The Examiner finds that the aforementioned claim limitation can be
interpreted "to include the scenario where the content item is returned to
presentation within the parent window instead of being a separate window"
(Ans. 3). The Examiner further finds that "[c]laim 1 does not specify that
the presentation format returned to must be identical in all aspects to a prior
3
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
video presentation ... [but can merely be interpreted as] returning the video
to a window to where it was presented previously" (id.). We agree with the
Examiner.
For example, Appellants' Specification merely states that "the user
may tap on the mini-player UI or drag the mini-player UI in order to return
the content item player to its original format ( e.g., maximize the content item
player)" (Spec. ,r 52; see also ,r 78 and Fig. 3B, item 390). In other words,
Appellants' Specification does not require a specific positional placement of
the returned mini-player, as proffered by Appellants, but broadly describes
returning the mini-player to a maximize state, i.e., its original/default parent
window. Therefore, we find that the Examiner's aforementioned
interpretation of the claimed "presentation in the first portion of the UI of the
application" as reading on presentation in the parent window is consistent
with the description in Appellants' Specification. As such, we agree that the
claimed "returning the content item player to an original presentation format
... in the first portion of the UI" reads on returning the mini-player to the
parent window, which is taught in Pletcher.
For example, Pletcher discloses "undocking content from a window
into sub-windows, [whereby] [t]he undocked sub-windows may be redocked
to the parent window" (Abstract). Pletcher further discloses that"[ v ]arious
applications of the invention relate to how an undocked window is re-docked
to the web page" (2:41--43).
Thus, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that "Pletcher is
silent with regard to the specific placement of the sub-window when it is re-
docked" (App. Br. 11), given that Appellants' description of re-docking in
their Specification and their broadly written claim does not necessarily
4
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
require a specific positional area within the parent window. Therefore,
Pletcher need not describe a specific positional placement either.
Secondly, Appellants contend that "Thiyagarajan does not teach or
suggest responsive to the second gesture comprising a minimization gesture
to dismiss the mini-player, stopping playback of the content item and
removing the mini-player from the application UI" (App. Br. 13), because
"Thiyagarajan is silent as to the status of playback of the content item upon
dismissal of the sub-window" (id. at 15). Appellants further contend that
"Thiyagarajan describes disabling playback in the first docked media player
that originates the sub-window, and does not describe stopping [the]
playback in a sub-window" (id.).
Although we agree with Appellants that Thiyagarajan describes in
paragraph 44 disabling playback in the docked media player, as opposed to
the stand-alone (un-docked) media player (see Thiyagarajan ,r 44 ("the
process 500 may disable, stop, or end the presentation/playback of the media
content by the docked media player")), the Examiner also finds, and we
agree, that Thiyagarajan illustrates in Figure 4 an "X" icon ( element 306) in
the upper right comer which indicates that the window can be closed -
which would remove the undocked player from the UI, at least stopping the
playback in the mini-player (see Final Act. 3; see also Thiyagarajan Fig. 4).
In response, Appellants contend that when the sub-window is
dismissed by pressing the "X," "it is possible that the playback of the
content item continues in the docked window from which the sub-window
originated" (App. Br. 15). While Appellants' aforementioned scenario is
plausible, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
pressing the "X" would more likely suggest "stopping" playback and
5
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
removing the mini-player, and not continuing the playback in the docked
window. Furthermore, Appellants fail to direct our attention to any
disclosure in Thiyagarajan that supports their contention that pressing the
"X" on the stand-alone (i.e., un-docked) window will necessarily continue
the playback in the docked window. Without such a disclosure, we find
Appellants' aforementioned argument unavailing.
Thirdly, regarding Appellants' contention that "Pletcher does not
teach or suggest ... a minimization gesture to dismiss the mini-player"
(App. Br. 16), because "Pletcher describes the gesture that closes the sub-
window is actually the closing of the parent window[]" (id. at 17), we point
out that Thiyagarajan's "X" button, described supra, is sufficient to teach
this feature (Final Act. 3). It is not necessary that Pletcher also teach this
feature. Therefore, Appellants' argument against Pletcher separately from
Thiyagarajan does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the
Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 12 and 17 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted
below. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims
2--4, 6-10, 12-21, 23-26, 28-30, and 32-34.
6
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Appellants contend that "there is no mention [in
Billings] of a display quality format of the mini-player being the same as the
display quality format of the content item player when originally displayed
in the application UI" (App. Br. 20-21 ), but rather "displaying smaller,
thumbnail size versions of a video and maintaining fragments at different
data rates for a video" (id. at 21 ).
Although we agree with the Examiner that the claimed "quality
format" is not defined or limited to any specific parameter and a measure of
quality can include bitrate and compression (see Ans. 8), claim 11 does
require that "a display quality format of the mini-player is the same as the
display quality format of the content item player when originally displayed"
(see claim 11) ( emphasis added). We find that the Examiner's finding with
regard to using the "same" quality format is insufficient, regardless of what
metric the Examiner is using.
For example, the Examiner finds that "if the bandwidth and
processing is sufficient to support the bitrate, Billings is teaching supplying
the video with the maximum available video bitrate (a measure of quality)"
(Ans. 8-9). However, such a finding is insufficient to teach the claimed "a
display quality format of the mini-player is the same as ... when originally
displayed" ( claim 11 ). At best, the cited portions of Billings merely describe
looking at whether resources are sufficient to play the fragment (see Billings
,r 117), not whether the same quality format is used by two different players.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely upon the other cited art to teach
this feature.
7
Appeal2018-0019122
Application 14/144,778
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references, as set forth by the Examiner, does not
support the obviousness rejection for claim 11. We, accordingly, do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection of dependent claim 11.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-
21, 23-26, 28-30, and 32-34.
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-IN-PART
8