Ex Parte Hayward

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2010

10415210 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MONTE DUANE HAYWARD
____________

Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: March 30, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-32. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a method for displaying video data using an
embedded media player page. The embedded media player page displays
video data by receiving frame dimensional data and sizes a display area of
the media player based upon the received frame dimensional data.1

Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A method of displaying video data using an embedded media player page,
comprising the steps of:
receiving frame dimensional data for a first video file from a database, said
database including frame dimensional data indexed therein for a plurality of
video files, said plurality of video files including said first video file, said
plurality of video files being retrievable from at least one video server
through a network;
launching a media player within said embedded media player page; and
sizing a display area of said media player based upon said received frame
dimensional data.

The Rejections
Shintani US 6,839,903 B1 Jan. 4, 2005
Haber US 7,000,242 B1 Feb. 14, 2006
Girouard US 7,222,163 B1 May 22, 2007

Claims 1-6, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Haber (Ans. 3-7).

1 See generally App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

3
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Haber and Shintani (Ans. 7-8).
Claims 16, 24, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Haber and Girouard (Ans. 8-9).

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 28, 2008), the Reply Brief (filed
June 26, 2008), and the Answer (mailed May 15, 2008) for their respective
details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually
made by Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did
not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

Anticipation rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-31 over Haber

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Figure 1 of Haber is reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

4

Figure 1 shows a system that allows the host server 205 to provide video
content to the end user 201 (Haber; col. 3, ll. 43-45, 61-65).
2. Haber discloses
The host server 205 uses software resident on the host to create
the user interface or webpage as described earlier. In a preferred
embodiment, the video server will provide the video content,
the images, and the hypertext links all to the user through the
user interface or webpage. The signal provided from the host
server 205 to the video server 210 will include codes for
directing the size and location where the video is to be
displayed, such that the video will play in the video content
area 305 of the user interface or webpage provided by the host
server 210.
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

5
(Haber; col. 8, ll. 34-43).
3. Haber further discloses that in one embodiment
In the case of streaming video content when a user selects to
play the video content, the client sends a signal to the video
server to begin playing the streaming video content. In the case
of cached video content, video is downloaded and cached at the
video server 210 and the host server begins retrieving the video
content from the cache. The host server 205 can then
appropriately resize the video such that it is properly displayed
in the video content area 305 of the user interface or webpage.
(Haber; col. 8, ll. 52-61).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-6 and 9-15 recite “receiving frame
dimensional data for a first video file” and “sizing a display area . . . based
upon said received dimensional data” and concludes that Haber fails to
disclose either of the recited elements of the claims (App. Br. 13). The
Examiner contends that Haber discloses receiving frame dimensional data
for a first video file from a database 205 and sizes a display area of the
media player based upon the received dimensional data. See Ans. 3-4.
Therefore the issue before us is:
Does Haber’s database provide frame dimensional data for video
content that sizes the display area of the media player?
Appellant refers to Haber, column 8, lines 38-43 and 58-61, and
argues that Haber describes a process in which the size of the display is used
to determine the size of the embedded video content instead of the claimed
method wherein the received dimensional data sizes the display based upon
the embedded video content (App. Br. 9-10, see also FF 1-3).
Haber appears to make a distinction between streaming and cached
video content because Haber specifies that cached video content 210 is
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

6
resized to fit the display area. However, Haber is silent in regards to
specifying the sizing requirements for streaming video. See FF 2-3. Haber
discloses that the signal provided by the host server 205 to the video server
210 includes codes for directing the size and location of where the streaming
video is to be displayed, such that the video will play in the video content or
display area 305 (FF 1-2). Haber does not specify that the video content is
sized to fit the display area or if the display area is sized to fit the video
content. See FF 2. Further, the Examiner has not pointed to any other
sections of Haber that would support his position that Haber sizes the video
display area based upon received frame dimensional data. See Ans. 3-4, 9-
15.
It is Haber’s ambiguity in relation to the sizing of the video content
that leaves the Examiner’s position unsupported and therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-15. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc., 814
F.2d at 631.
Appellant argues that claims 17-23 and 25-31 recite “receiving frame
dimensional data for a first video file” and “sizing a display area . . . based
upon said received dimensional data” and concludes that Haber does not
disclose the claimed limitations. See App. Br. 13-14. We agree with
Appellant and will not sustain the rejection of claims 17-23 and 25-31 for
the same reasons as stated above.

Obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 24, and 32 over the combination of
Haber, Shintani or Girouard
Claims 7, 8, 16, 24, and 32 are dependent upon independent claims 1,
17, and 32 and because neither Shintani nor Girouard addresses the
Appeal 2009-006612
Application 10/415,210

7
deficiencies of Haber, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 24,
and 32.

CONCLUSION
Haber’s database does not provide frame dimensional data for video
content that sizes the display area of the media player.

ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32.

REVERSED

gvw

FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413