Ex Parte Eppolito

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13250855 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/250,855 09/30/2011 Aaron M. Eppolito 337722-333903/Pll 101US2 3952
133036 7590
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
MCINTOSH, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON M. EPPOLITO
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—10, 21—24, and 31^42. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 21—23, 31, 32, and 34-42 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Herberger et al. (US 2005/0132293 Al;
June 16, 2005) (“Herberger”) and Gentile et al. (US 2010/0035682 Al; Feb.
11, 2010) (“Gentile”). Final Act. 2-14.
Claims 3 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Herberger, Gentile, and Debique et al. (US 2005/0030980 Al; Feb. 10,
2005) (“Debique”). Final Act. 14—15.
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Herberger, Gentile, and Marcus (US RE41,493 E; Aug. 10, 2010).
Final Act. 15—17.1
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a media editing application that
allows a composite presentation to be exported to different tracks.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of rendering a composite presentation, the method
comprising:
defining a composite presentation comprising a sequence of media
clips that are tagged with different tags, wherein each of the different tags
corresponds with a category for a media clip that is associated with the tag;
associating each category with a different output track of a plurality of
output tracks; and
for each category:
identifying a plurality of media clips of the sequence of media
clips in the composite presentation with a particular tag that corresponds
with the category;
combining the plurality of media clips; and
outputting the combined media clips to a particular output track
that is associated with the category.
1 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection omits Gentile, but the
Examiner’s reasoning uses the teachings of this reference. Final Act. 15—17.
We treat claims 10 and 24 as rejected over Herberger, Gentile, and Marcus.
2
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,2, 4-9,21-23,31,32, and 34-42
OVER HERBERGER AND GENTILE
The Examiner finds Herberger and Gentile teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2—7. The Examiner finds Herberger teaches all
limitations of claim 1, except for the recited (claim 1): “outputting the
combined media clips.” Final Act. 2—6. The Examiner finds Gentile teaches
the recited (claim 1): “outputting the combined media clips.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner reasons that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Final Act. 6—7.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. “[C]laim 1 relates to associating each category with a different
output track of multiple output tracks. Appellant’s specification clearly
defines each ‘output track’ as being a ‘different audio file.’” App. Br. 11.
“Herberger, on the other hand, associates different names for different tracks
within a multimedia editing system.” App. Br. 11. “Herberger’s different
tracks are within the multimedia editing system, and thus do not correspond
to the claimed multiple output tracks that are each associated with a
category.” App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3—5.
ii. Gentile does not teach the recited (claim 1): “outputting the
combined media clips.” See App. Br. 12—13.
Appellants’ specification defines each particular output track as
a distinct audio file. Gentile, on the other hand, condenses
separate tracks, when the user is finished manipulating the tracks
during the content development process, down to one master
track. See paragraph 104 of Gentile. Hence, Gentile cannot
output a particular output track associated with each category
3
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
because only one master track is ever output by the content
development process.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
iii. “Gentile never describes any aspect of a composite
presentation, thus no person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine
Gentile with Herberger.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7—8.
We reviewed the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (i), we adopt as our own the
Examiner’s finding that Herberger teaches (claim 1):
defining a composite presentation comprising a sequence
of media clips that are tagged with different tags, wherein each
of the different tags corresponds with a category for a media clip
that is associated with the tag;
associating each category with a different output track of
a plurality of output tracks
because, as further explained in the Examiner’s Answer:
Herberger teaches a composite presentation including a sequence
of media clips. Fig. 3; Para. 0030. Further, Herberger teaches
clips tagged with different tags that each corresponds with a
category for a media clip associated with the tag. Id. Further, the
clips are tagged according to type-content as well as sub­
characteristic within the type content. Para. 0030 and 0033.
Further, the output tracks are associated with categories
corresponding to the clips and the different output tracks. Id.
Ans. 18.
4
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that Appellant’s
Specification does not limit “output track” to a file external to the
multimedia editing system. See Spec. 27:8—10 (“The media editing
application of some embodiments allows a composite presentation to be
output to different tracks (e.g., different files) based on metadata associated
with media content.”) Thus, the broad claim language does not preclude a
finding that Herberger’s tracks (Fig. 3, items 320, 330, 340, and 350) teach
the recited (claim 1) “plurality of output tracks.” In addition, we emphasize
that Herberger’s “sequence of media clips” is composed of the clips from all
tracks, collectively; thus, contrary to Appellant’s further arguments in the
Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 3—5), different media clips in the sequence of
media clips are tagged with different tags (Herberger’s track descriptors).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (ii), we adopt as our own the
Examiner’s finding that Herberger and Gentile teach (claim 1) for each
category, “outputting the combined media clips to a particular output track
that is associated with the category.” Herberger teaches, for each category, a
particular output track that is associated with each category. See Herberger,
Fig. 3, items 320, 330, 340, and 350; see also Ans. 18—19. We also agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s further explanation: “Gentile
further teaches outputting the combined clips in that clips are combined and
outputted with specific metadata or types from a source video into tracks and
stor[ed] for later use in an editing process.” Ans. 19 (citing Gentile ]Hf 101—
103).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (iii), the Examiner reasons:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify the system and
method, taught in Herberger, to include outputting the combined
5
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
clips for the purpose of efficiently editing and customizing an
audiovisual composition, as taught by Gentile.
Final Act. 6—7 (citing Gentile 1115); see also Ans. 19 (“Further reason[s]
for combining the teachings of Gentile with the teachings of Herberger
include efficiently editing and customizing an audiovisual composition, as
taught by Gentile.”) We agree. In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize
that the Examiner’s reliance on Gentile is limited to teaching the recited
(claim 1): “outputting the combined media clips.” See Final Act. 6. In light
of the collective teachings of the references, a skilled artisan would have
readily applied this teaching to the tracks in Herberger, which are composed
of combined media clips. See Herberger Fig. 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 31 and 39, Appellant presents the same
principal arguments as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 15—25; Reply Br.
8—18. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and
39 for the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 further recites: “wherein said identifying,
combining, and outputting for each category is performed at least partially at
a same time.” The Examiner finds Herberger teaches these further
recitations. Final Act. 8—9 (citing Herberger || 28, 37); see also Ans. 24.
Appellant argues (i) Herberger does not perform outputting, and (ii)
Gentile does not teach performing the recited operations. See App. Br. 25—
26; see also Reply Br. 18—19.
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s findings, and we concur
with the Examiner’s conclusion, with respect to claim 6. For reasons
discussed above, Herberger and Gentile, collectively, teach the recited
identifying, combining, and outputting. With regard to being (claim 6)
6
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
“performed at least partially at a same time,” in Herberger’s system when
combined with Gentile the action of adding a media clip to a track (see
Herberger Fig. 3) reasonably describes identifying, combining, and
outputting at least partially at a same time. See Ans. 24.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 further recites: “wherein the plurality of
media clips comprises at least one compound clip that includes multiple
inner clips, the method further comprising identifying each of the compound
clip’s inner clips.” The Examiner finds Herberger teaches these further
recitations. Final Act. 10-11 (citing Herberger || 30, 33); see also Ans. 25.
Appellant argues Herberger teaches tracks containing clips, but not a
compound clip that includes multiple inner clips. See App. Br. 26—27; see
also Reply Br. 19-20. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree that
Herberger (Fig. 3) teaches at least one compound clip that includes multiple
inner clips (for example, compound clip including inner clips CLIP V1,
BLUR, CLIP Al, which are identified). See Ans. 25.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 35, Appellant presents the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 6. See App. Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 18—19. We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 for the reasons
discussed above when addressing claim 6.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 further recites:
wherein the sequence of media clips comprises at least one
compound clip that comprises a plurality of inner clips, wherein
a first inner clip of the compound clip is tagged with a first tag
and a second inner clip of the compound clip is tagged with a
second different tag.
7
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
The Examiner finds Herberger teaches these further recitations. Final Act.
13—14 (citing Herberger || 30, 33); see also Ans. 28.
Appellant argues Herberger teaches tracks containing clips, but not
the claimed subject matter. See App. Br. 32; see also Reply Br. 22. Contrary
to Appellant’s argument, as noted supra, we agree that Herberger (Fig. 3)
teaches at least one compound clip that comprises a plurality of inner clips
and also teaches that a first inner clip of the compound clip is tagged with a
first tag and a second inner clip of the compound clip is tagged with a
second different tag (tags VIDEO 1, EFFECT VI, AUDIO 1). See Ans. 28.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 21—
23, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 40-42, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 33 over Herberger,
Gentile, and Debique
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 3 and 33.
See App. Br. 9-32; Reply Br. 2—22.
Claims 3 and 33 depend from claims 1 and 31, respectively. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 33 for reasons
discussed above when addressing claims 1 and 31.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10 and 24 over Herberger and
Marcus
The Examiner finds Herberger, Gentile, and Marcus teach all
limitations of claim 10. Final Act. 16; see also Ans. 25—26.
8
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
Claim 10 further recites: “identifying a particular tag of the
compound clip, wherein the outputting comprises outputting the inner clips
based on the particular tag of the compound clip when one or more of the
inner clips’ tags are the same as the particular tag.” The Examiner finds
Marcus’s database of tagged clips teaches these further recitations. Final
Act. 16 (citing Marcus Figs. 2, 6; col. 3,11. 17—25, col. 5,11. 5—15, 45—55).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine Herberger,
Gentile, and Marcus. See Final Act. 16.
In particular, Marcus (col. 5,11. 51—55) teaches:
The database is cr[e]ated by identifying each clip or other asset
and defining values of the control tags and content tags for each.
Values of the various control tags and content tags may be
defined by a user, either during development of the script for the
clip or upon completion of the clip.
Appellant argues: “Marcus will always output the program with the
concatenated clips regardless of any other clip in the program.” App. Br. 29;
see also Reply Br. 20—21.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that
Herberger (Fig. 3) teaches at least one compound clip that comprises a
plurality of inner clips (for example, compound clip including inner clips
CFIP VI, BFUR, CFIP A1 having tags VIDEO 1, EFFECT VI, AUDIO 1).
In light of the further teachings from Marcus of a database of tagged clips,
we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to (claim 10) “identify[] a particular tag of the compound clip,”
(VIDEO 1, EFFECT VI, AUDIO 1) “wherein the outputting comprises
outputting the inner clips based on the particular tag of the compound clip
when one or more of the inner clips’ tags are the same as the particular tag”
(Marcus’s teaching of specifying clips based on tags). In reaching our
9
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
conclusion, we emphasize that we find Herberger’s tags VIDEO 1, EFFECT
V1, AUDIO 1 reasonably describe the same tag (“1 ”) at least in the sense
that each of tags VIDEO 1, EFFECT V1, AUDIO 1 indicates a relationship
among inner clips CLIP VI, BLUR, CLIP Al.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
The Examiner finds Herberger, Gentile, and Marcus teach all
limitations of claim 24. Final Act. 16—17; see also Ans. 26—27.
Claim 24 further recites:
identifying a first tag of the compound clip and a second
different tag for at least one particular inner clip, wherein the
outputting comprises first outputting the particular inner clip
based on the second different tag and then outputting the
combined inner clips based on the first tag of the compound
clip.
The Examiner finds Marcus’s database of tagged clips teaches these further
recitations. Final Act. 16—17 (citing Marcus Figs. 2, 6; col. 3,11. 17—25, col.
5,11. 5—15, 45—55). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to
combine Herberger, Gentile, and Marcus. See Final Act. 17.
Appellant argues: “Marcus clearly describes outputting the program
by concatenating the clips together.” App. Br. 30; see also Reply Br. 21—22.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we find Herberger (Fig. 3) teaches
at least one compound clip that comprises a plurality of inner clips (for
example, compound clip including inner clips CLIP VI, BLUR, CLIP Al
having tags VIDEO 1, EFFECT VI, AUDIO 1). In light of the further
10
Appeal 2017-001007
Application 13/250,855
teachings from Marcus of a database of tagged clips, we agree with the
Examiner that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to (claim 24)
“identify [] a first tag of the compound clip and a second different tag for at
least one particular inner clip,” (VIDEO 1, EFFECT VI, AUDIO 1)
“wherein the outputting comprises first outputting the particular inner clip
based on the second different tag” (CLIP VI or CLIP Al) “and then
outputting the combined inner clips based on the first tag of the compound
clip” (CLIP VI, BLUR, CLIP Al). See Ans. 27 (“Herberger teaches larger
clips associated with a broad clip tag and sub-clips associated with more
specific tags.”)
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 21—24, and 31—42 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).
AFFIRMED
11