Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2013

11864862 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2013)

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.
11/864,862 09/28/2007 Marc Davis YAHOP024 4214
76133 7590 12/06/2013
MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC.
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARC DAVIS, JOSEPH O’SULLIVAN,
CHRIS W. HIGGINS, RON MARTINEZ,
and ATHELLINA ATHSANI
____________________

Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to methods for
controlling switching of multimedia content captured from a plurality of
locations via one or more capturing devices and obtaining multimedia
content that identify a type of content being captured and/or location of
capture.

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for controlling switching of interactive
multimedia content, the method comprising:

obtaining multimedia content identifying a type of
content being captured or location of capture, the
obtained multimedia content being gathered from a
plurality of capturing devices operating independently of
one another;

at a time when a search request is made, processing the
multimedia content based on search preference to
identify which of the plurality of capturing devices
capture multimedia content conforming to the search
preference;
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

3

presenting the multimedia content conforming to the
search preference at receiving devices in substantial real-
time, such that the presenting is automatically updated
over time when particular ones of the plurality of
capturing devices either conform or fail to conform to the
search preference;

receiving substantial real-time feedback from one or
more of the receiving devices, the substantial real-time
feedback defining actions performed at the receiving
devices in relation to the presented multimedia content,
the defined actions serving to influence modification of
the multimedia content;

enabling dynamic switching of certain multimedia
content presented at the receiving devices in substantial
real-time based on substantial real-time feedback and
search preference, such that each of the receiving devices
is presented with a dynamic subset of the multimedia
content based on the modification of the multimedia
content.

REFERENCES
Ortiz
Chen
Messer
US 2004/0032495 A1
US 2007/0276807 A1
US 2008/0221989 A1
Feb. 19, 2004
Nov. 29, 2007
Sept. 11, 2008

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:

(1) Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ortiz (Ans. 4-6).
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

4
(2) Claims 3, 4, 10-13, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ortiz and Messer (Ans. 7-
17).
(3) Claims 5-9 and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ortiz, Messer, and Chen (Ans. 17-24).

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ortiz discloses the
limitations as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
“obtaining multimedia content . . . .”
Appellants argue Ortiz describes a synchronized camera system for
capturing views of live venue activities; thus, the capturing devices are NOT
operating independent of each other as required by the claim (App. Br. 5;
Reply Br. 3-5).
We are not persuaded. Ortiz describes synchronized cameras;
however, based on Ortiz’s disclosure, we interpret the term “synchronized”
as meaning capturing data from one overall event. For example, contrary to
Appellants’ assertions, Ortiz discloses cameras which act independently
from each other (see e.g. [0182]-[0210] discussing use of “in-play” cameras
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

5
in race cars and “Fan CAM” cameras to provide roaming video view within
a village; see also [0217] discussing use of “in-play” cameras assigned to
specific championship golfers). Appellants did not explicitly define
“independently” in their Specification. However, based on Appellants’
“SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER,” this interpretation is
consistent with Appellants’ description of cameras “operating independently
of one another” (see App. Br. 2 and especially, paragraph [0065] of
Appellants’ Specification).
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings.

“presenting the multimedia content . . . .”
Appellants argue Ortiz discloses when capturing devices conform to
the user request, video data is captured; however, when the capturing
devices do not conform, no video data is captured (App. Br. 6). Thus,
according to Appellants, a blank screen will be presented – not content (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Ortiz discloses the presenting is automatically updated when
capturing devices either conform or fail to conform (Ans. 5 and 26). We
further note this limitation recites a conditional statement and thus, the
updating does not need to occur if the capturing device fails to conform to
the search reference. We also note the multimedia content is present when it
conforms to the search preference.
Appellants additionally argue Ortiz does not disclose automatically
updating the multimedia content since a user selects the specific tuners
(App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5-6). Again, we are not persuaded. The user may
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

6
select the view; however, the device automatically updates the presenting
(Ans. 5 and 26).
Furthermore, Appellants argue their invention receives multimedia
content as a composite stream which is not disclosed in Ortiz (Reply Br. 6).
These arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim recitation,
nor does Appellants’ Specification define “multimedia content” as a
composite stream. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of “multimedia content” or in the Examiner’s findings.

“receiving substantial real-time feedback . . . .”
Appellants argue the panning/zooming of video content described by
Ortiz is on the content rendered at the receiving device and the user controls
display of the video content (App. Br. 6-7). Therefore, according to
Appellants, Ortiz does not disclose that any modification to the multimedia
content is performed by the capturing device (App. Br. 7) and further, that in
Ortiz, the real-time feedback (panning/zooming) is not used to influence
modification of the multimedia content (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 7-8).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans.
6 and 26) and Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument
to persuade us of error. We also note Appellants are arguing limitations not
recited in the claim.

“enabling switching of certain multimedia content . . . .”
Appellants argue Ortiz does not describe presenting a subset of
multimedia content wherein each multimedia content within the subset is
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

7
captured and transmitted by an independently operated capturing device
(App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, Ortiz’s dynamic switching controls
the display of content at the receiving device based on user action at the
receiving device – not an update to the subset of the multimedia content
presented at the receiving devices due to dynamic switching (id.).
Appellants contend Ortiz’s panning and zooming does not switch
multimedia content rendered at the hand held device but instead, only
describes how content is viewed (Reply Br. 8).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans.
6 and 26-27). Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. We emphasize
claims interpreted broadly, but reasonably, in light of the Specification.

Conclusion:
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Ortiz discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 2, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ortiz.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 4, 10-13, and 19-25
Appellants rely on the arguments set forth with respect to claim 1 and
further argue Messer did not cure the deficiencies of Ortiz (App. Br. 8). For
the reasons set forth in Issue 1, we are not persuaded. Accordingly, claims
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

8
3, 4, 10-13, and 19-25 fall with claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 3, 4, 10-13, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Ortiz and Messer.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5-9 and 14-18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Oritz, Messer,
and Chen because search ranking of a file system within a computer system
is different from ranking of multimedia streams captured by independently
operated capturing devices (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 10).
The issue presented by these arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Oritz, Messer, and Chen teaches or suggests “generating dynamic network
quality score (QS) value for each of the multimedia content and associated
users” as recited in claim 5?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings (Ans. 18-19 and 27) and conclusion (see also Chen, p.
4, [0070] and [0071]). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Oritz, Messer, and Chen teaches or suggests the limitations
as recited in claim 5 and commensurately recited in claim 14. Claims 6-9
and 15-18 were not separately argued and therefore, these claims fall with
Appeal 2011-007660
Application 11/864,862

9
claims 5 and 14, respectively. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
5-9 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Oritz, Messer,
and Chen.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ortiz is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 10-13, and 19-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ortiz and Messer is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-9 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oritz, Messer, and Chen 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis