Ex Parte Eklund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

11467896 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111467,896
103865 7590
Procopio - SPE
525 B Street
Suite 2200
FILING DATE
08/28/2006
03/15/2016
San Diego, CA 92101
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Don Eklund
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.
113748-6001US 4219
EXAMINER
TOPGY AL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
docketing@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DON EKLUND, SUMIT MALIK, RAJA SARI,
and TOMMY CHOY
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and IRVINE. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-17, 20-24, and 26. Claims 5, 6, 18, 19, and
25 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention provides abstractions in authoring Blu-ray
Discs (BD) that simplifies complex structures and their interlinking to ease
the authoring process. For example, the abstractions allow a user to switch
views of a BD-ROM data structure based on requirements and level of user
expertise. See generally Abstract; Spec. 24: 12-20; Fig. 21. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
1. A method to author a Blu-ray Disc, the method
compnsmg:
generating abstractions using at least one programmable
processor to represent objects that are presentation oriented,
including playable contents, segments, scripts, clips, streams,
events, interactive objects, and effects,
wherein the abstractions off er a functionality for a user to
switch views of a BD-ROM data structure based on requirements
and levels of expertise of the user,
wherein the playable contents include an index table
structure that defines titles of the video disc,
wherein the playable contents include a browsable
slideshow object;
wherein entries of the index table structure including first
playback that is used by content providers to perform automatic
playback, top menu, and the titles, and
wherein each entry of the index table structure links to a
movie object;
creating an entry mark at a beginning point of each of at
least one of still frame pictures and short video slides to enable
the authoring of the playable content with asynchronous audio
across slides so that the audio does not get interrupted when the
at least one of still frame pictures and short video slides are
navigated; and
presenting the abstractions to the user using the at least one
programmable processor to allow the user to use the abstractions
as a mechanism to author projects independent of an underlying
format compliant to a final project output format,
wherein the mechanism includes the functionality to
switch views of the BD-ROM data structure based on
requirements and levels of expertise of the user.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-17, 20-24, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Uesaka (US 2005/0264437 Al; pub.
Dec. 1, 2005), White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Format, 2.B Audio Visual
Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM, Blu-Ray Disc Ass'n, 4--35
2
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
(Mar. 2005) ("Blu-ray White Paper"), and Yoshida (US 7 ,450,822 B2; iss.
Nov. 11, 2008). Ans. 2-8. 1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Uesaka's Blu-ray Disc authoring method,
among other things, ( 1) generates abstractions to represent seven of the eight
recited presentation-oriented objects, including playable contents, and (2)
presents the abstractions to a user to use as a mechanism to (a) author
projects independent of an underlying format, and (b) switch views of a BD-
ROM data structure, as claimed. Ans. 2--4. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Uesaka lacks an effect-based object, and that playable
contents include a browsable slideshow object, the Examiner cites Blu-ray
White Paper for teaching these features. Ans. 4. According to the
Examiner, the Blu-ray White Paper's browsable slideshow object allows
authoring of still frame pictures or short video slides with asynchronous
audio across slides such that when a user navigates the slides, audio is
uninterrupted. Id. (citing Blu-ray White Paper § 4.2.1.1 ).
The Examiner also acknowledges that the Uesaka/Blu-ray White
Paper combination does not create an entry mark at a beginning point of
each of at least one of still frame pictures and short video slides to enable
authoring, but cites Yoshida for teaching this feature. Ans. 5. In light of
these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would
have been obvious. Ans. 5---6.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 15,
2013 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 23, 2013
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 22, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not create an entry mark
at the beginning point of each still picture or short video slide to enable
authoring playable content with asynchronous audio across slides to not
interrupt the audio when the pictures or slides are navigated. App. Br. 7-13;
Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Yoshida's thumbnail images at
various start timecodes in Figure 10 are merely used to check content of
each recorded scene, and do not show asynchronous audio corresponding to
the still frame pictures, let alone allow entry into the still photos/videos for
authoring with asynchronous audio across slides as claimed. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 5. Appellants add that the Blu-ray White Paper likewise does not
enable authoring playable content with asynchronous audio across slides.
App. Br. 13. Lastly, Appellants contend that the Examiner's proposed
combination is based on improper hindsight because the cited prior art
provides no motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 13-14.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Uesaka, the Blu-ray White Paper, and Yoshida collectively
would have taught or suggested creating an entry mark at the beginning
point of each still picture or short video slide to enable authoring playable
content with asynchronous audio across slides to not interrupt the audio
when the pictures or slides are navigated, where the playable content
includes a browsable slideshow object?
(2) Is the Examiner's combination of the cited references' teachings
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
4
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's particular findings from
U esaka on pages 2 to 4 of the Answer are undisputed. Nor is it disputed that
Yoshida may have synchronous audio attached to the videos which may be
used to author playable content. Reply Br. 5 (acknowledging this point).
As noted above, the Examiner acknowledges that Yoshida lacks the
asynchronous audio and browsable slideshow limitations, but cites Blu-ray
White Paper for these features, including browsing still frames/videos
without interrupting the corresponding audio presentation. Ans. 4, 9-10
(citing Blu-ray White Paper§ 4.2.1.1).
Based on these collective teachings, we see no error in the Examiner's
position that Yoshida's time codes 7112 in Figure 10, which the Examiner
maps to the recited "entry marks," can at least enable playable content
authoring with asynchronous audio across slides so as not to interrupt the
audio during navigation, as claimed. Notably, Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that by enabling the user to freely
change (skip next or skip back) still pictures while not interrupting the audio
presentation, the Blu-ray White Paper's audio presentation is asynchronous
across the slides since it is unaffected when skipped forward or backward.
Ans. 4, 9. To the extent that Appellants contend otherwise (see App. Br. 11,
13), Appellants provide no persuasive evidence on this record to show error
in the Examiner's finding.
Appellants' arguments regarding Yoshida' s shortcomings in this
regard (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5), then, do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's position that is not based on Yoshida alone, but rather the cited
references' collective teachings. Accord Ans. 9 (noting this point); see also
5
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
Jn re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting that
nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually).
So even assuming, without deciding, that Yoshida's system is limited
to attaching synchronous audio to videos which may be used to author
playable content as Appellants seem to suggest (see Reply Br. 5), we
nevertheless see no reason why the U esaka/Y oshida system would at least be
capable of authoring playable content with asynchronous audio across slides
in light of the Blu-ray White Paper.
Lastly, Appellants' contention that the Examiner's proposed
combination is based on improper hindsight because the cited prior art
provides no motivation to combine the references (App. Br. 13-14) is
unavailing. It is well settled that "[t]he motivation [to combine references]
need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be
found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art
as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH
& Co. Deutschland KG v. CH. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (internal citation omitted). In short, the Examiner's stated rationale to
combine the references (Ans. 5---6, 11-12) is supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-17, 20-24, and 26 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).
6
Appeal2013-009339
Application 11/467 ,896
AFFIRMED
7