09828618 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

Ex Parte Girouard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 23, 2010

09828618 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAVID GIROUARD, BRADLEY HOROWITZ, RICHARD HUMPHREY, and CHARLES FULLER _____________ Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16, 18, 19, and 21-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to employing offset video stream pointers, for example Uniform Resource Locator (URL) references, to communicate, collect, or share video information without having to physically copy large amounts of video content around the network (Spec. 8:21-24). A mechanism of using URL references offers many advantages, including, for example, eliminating the need to copy the actual video content, thereby reducing network bandwidth and system storage requirements (Spec. 8:25-29). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A video community system, comprising: an index generator of video content configured to generate an index of the video content, wherein the index comprises metadata based on the content of the video; an encoder of the video content configured to generate encoded video content; a video search and retrieval application configured to search the index of the video content based on a user query and return a search result; and a repository storing the index of the video content and the encoded video content, and being accessible by the video search and retrieval Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 3 application, wherein a selected portion of the repository is processed in response to a user-selected operation so as to be shareable via an offset video stream pointer with at least one other user, the offset video stream pointer providing access to a portion of a video file stored on the repository, wherein the portion has start and end times within the video file. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Baji US 5,027,400 Jun. 25, 1991 Williams US 5,414,808 May 9, 1995 Takahashi US 5,568,328 Oct. 22, 1996 Milewski US 6,289,346 B1 Sep. 11, 2001 Ellis US 6,774,926 B1 Aug. 10, 2004 JOSÉ ALVEAR, Streaming Email, in WEB DEVELOPER.COM GUIDE TO STREAMING MULTIMEDIA 303-17 (John Wiley & Sons 1998) [hereinafter “Streaming Email”]. The following rejections are before us for review: 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baji in view of Takahashi, Ellis, and Williams. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9-16, 18, 19, 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baji in view of Takahashi, Ellis, “Streaming Email,” and Williams. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baji in view of Takahashi, Ellis, “Streaming Email,” Williams, and Milewski. Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 4 ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Baji in view of Takahashi, Ellis, and Williams teaches the limitation of: wherein a selected portion of the repository is processed in response to a user-selected operation so as to be shareable via an offset video stream pointer with at least one other user, the offset video stream pointer providing access to a portion of a video file stored on the repository, wherein the portion has start and end times within the video file as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). ANALYSIS Appellants argue (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4), inter alia, that contrary to Examiner’s contentions (Ans. 5-6, 26), Williams does not teach that the single command (i.e., offset video stream pointer) is “shareable . . . with at least one other user,” and thus, Williams does cure Baji’s deficiency. We agree with Appellants. At best, Williams teaches that the single command is issued to the interface for retrieving a video segment and transmitting it to the user’s CPU 12 (Williams, col. 7, ll. 56-57; col. 8, ll. 13- 19; col. 9, ll. 3-11, 31-38; col. 10, ll. 1-3). Williams does not teach that the single command is shareable with other users. Even if we were to agree with the Examiner (Ans. 26) that a command sent between two computers is shareable, Williams does not teach that; instead, Williams teaches a command that is issued to the interface memory 115 (col. 9, ll. 31-34). Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 5 Thus, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 2-16, 18, 19, and 21-30, because the additional references of Takahashi, Ellis, Milewski, and “Streaming Email,” either alone or in combination, do not cure the above cited deficiency. CONCLUSION The combination of Baji in view of Takahashi, Ellis, and Williams does not teach the limitation of: wherein a selected portion of the repository is processed in response to a user-selected operation so as to be shareable via an offset video stream pointer with at least one other user, the offset video stream pointer providing access to a portion of a video file stored on the repository, wherein the portion has start and end times within the video file. Claim 1 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the additional references of Milewski and “Streaming Email,” either alone or in combination, do not cure the cited deficiency. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16, 18, 19, and 21-30 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2010-010034 Application 09/828,618 6 babc KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92614