Ex Parte Hemmeryckx-Deleersnijder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

11619864 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT 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.
111619,864 01/04/2007 Bert Karel HEMMERYCKX-DELEERSNIJDER LUTZ 200621US01 8238
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
06/07/2016 EXAMINER
CASTRO, ALFONSO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 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@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERT KAREL HEMMERYCKX-DELEERSNIJDER
and KOEN HANDEKYN
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-24. Claims 14, 15, 18,
and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "trick play streams
that are used in fast forward mode and rewind mode of media delivery
systems, such as video-on-demand (VoD) systems ... "(Spec. 1, 11. 5-7).
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvf
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A media delivery system comprising:
a communications channel; and,
one or more processors operative to simultaneously
deliver over the communications channel a media asset stream
including a plurality of media assets for normal play-out and at
least one trick play stream for fast forward and/or rewind
play out;
wherein the trick play stream includes a content-based
summary of the media asset stream, the content-based summary
including a plurality of summaries of the media assets;
wherein the trick play stream and the media asset stream
are delivered so current playback positions of the trick play
stream and the media asset stream are correlated while
switching between playback of the trick play stream and the
media asset stream.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
De Money
Carlucci
Li
Look
Zimmerman
Shen
Van De Streek
Eliyahu
us 6,065,050
US 2004/0015999 Al
US 2004/0085483 Al
US 6,757,906 Bl
US 7,046,911 B2
US 2006/0127035 Al
US 7 ,096,427 B2
us 2006/0277581
May 16, 2000
Jan. 22, 2004
May 6, 2004
June 29, 2004
May 16, 2006
June 15, 2006
Aug.22,2006
Dec. 7, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the teachings of Eliyahu and DeMoney.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the teachings ofEliyahu, DeMoney, and Van De Streek.
2
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
Claims 13, 19, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Eliyahu, DeMoney, and Van De Streek,
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
teachings of Eliyahu, DeMoney, Van De Streek, and Li.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eliyahu, DeMoney, and Zimmerman.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eliyahu, DeMoney, and Shen.
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eliyahu, DeMoney, and Carlucci.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eliyahu and DeMoney,applied in claim 1 further view of
Look.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Eliyahu and DeMoney teaches or would have
suggested "a media asset stream" and "at least one trick play stream for fast
forward and/or rewind play-out; wherein the trick play stream includes a
content-based summary of the media asset stream ... " and wherein the
media asset and trick play streams "are delivered so current playback
positions of the trick play stream and the media asset stream are correlated
while switching between playback of the trick play stream and the media
asset stream" (claim 1, emphasis added).
3
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
III. Fil-JDil-JGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Eliyahu
1. Eliyahu teaches a "method for providing media streams from a
local entity to multiple end user devices" (Abst.). A number of trick play
stream providing methods are disclosed (i-fi-f 12-22). In at least "one mode,
all frames are selected. In another mode, only the key frames are selected.
In yet other modes, only certain key frames are selected" (i-f 16). A local
entity 100 receives multiple input streams and "has a trick play mode/storage
path that stores and/or processes programs to provide trick play mode
programs ... " (i-fi-f 51, 64---65). Any of the discussed prior art trick play
providing methods may be used to provide the trick play stream from the
local entity to the controller (i-f 91 ). Multiple media are received, but one or
more are processed to facilitate generation of trick play modes of one or
more of the streams (i-fi-f 95-96).
DeMoney
2. DeMoney teaches a "system and method for indexing between
video streams in an interactive video delivery system" (Abst.). A server:
creates an index of look-up tables for each ... stream, i.e., for
the normal play stream and each of the trick play streams. The
index look-up table for the normal play multimedia stream
comprises an index or array of two-tuples ... each tuple
comprises a normal time value and a corresponding file offset
within the stream
(col. 9, 11. 13-20). To switch between a normal stream and another stream
based on user request, "the media server 50 finds a tuple in the index table,"
and "uses the offset of the found tuple ... to initiate output of the new
4
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
stream at that offset" (col. 10, 11. 32-33; col. 10, 11. 65----67). There is "no
requirement that the timestamps be continuous, e.g., there could be breaks or
gaps in the presentation timestamps" (col. 10, 11. 7-17).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the "prior art trick play modes of Eliyahu
appear to be based on periodically dropping frames of a media asset" (App.
Br. 6), however, the claimed invention requires that the "content-based
summary is not generated by simply dropping frames" (App. Br. 7, emphasis
in original). According to Appellants, Eliyahu's discussion of selecting key
frames or only certain key frames "could all be accomplished with periodic
selection of key frames" and, therefore, Eliyahu does not disclose a content-
based trick play stream (App. Br. 8).
Appellants further contend that "[t]he lookup table for the trick play
stream [of DeMoney] is determined by scaling the NPT values of the normal
play stream using a scaling factor ... based on the ratio of the presentation
rate" of the two streams (App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted)). Because this
discloses that the "approach to correlating the trick play stream and the
normal stream of DeMoney requires that the trick play stream be a periodic
selection of frames from the normal stream ... the combination of Eliyahu
and DeMoney would require substantial modification beyond what is
disclosed" (id. at 9).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
5
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter, we must give the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). vVhile we interpret clairns broadly but
reasonably in 1 ight of the specification, we nonethekss rnust not import
limitations from the specification into the claims. See Phillips v. A WH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted).
Claim 1 requires that a "trick play stream" be "for fast forward and/or
rewind playout" and "include[] a content-based summary of the media asset
stream," wherein the "content-based summary" includes "a plurality of
summaries of the media assets." The Specification describes the content
based trick play stream in that it "may contain short introductions,
highlights, trailers, extra scenes or assets, director interviews, skimmed
summaries, etc." (Spec. 3, 11. 23-25). Further, "speeds and modes" selected
by a user may determine which trick play stream, out of a possible plurality
of trick play streams for a media asset stream, will be played (Spec. 5, 11. 21-
23).
As the Examiner points out, "[t]he specification does not appear to
provide a definition of 'content-based summary' at variance with the
ordinary definitions" (Ans. 4; see also id. at 3---6). We agree and find no
support in the claim language and the Specification for the Appellants'
argument that the frames in the trick play stream must be selected in "an
intelligent manner" (App. Br. 7). Rather, we find no error with the
Examiner's conclusion that the plain meaning of the terms applies (Ans. 3-
6).
6
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
\Ve therefore agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable
interpretation of a content-based summary (Ans. 3---6), and find support for
the Examiner's finding that Eliyahu teaches a trick play stream including a
content-based summary of a media asset stream (Ans. 6-8; FF 1 ). In
particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding Eliyahu's disclosure of a
variety of trick play frame selection methods, including the selection of
"key" frames or "certain key frames" teaches and suggests "content-based
summary" (id.). Notably, in addition, Eliyahu is silent in terms of requiring
periodic, or even consecutive, selection of frames (id.). We find
unpersuasive Appellants' mere attorney arguments that the teachings of
Eliyahu necessarily require that frames in various trick play stream
determination methods be selected by "simply dropping frames" (App. Br.
6-8).
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the language
of claim 1 requires only a "correlation" between the playback positions of
the streams, and contains no further limitation regarding "how the
correlation is accomplished" (Ans. 14, 15). We therefore find support for
the Examiner's finding that DeMoney, discussing look-up tables comprising
time value and offset position tuples used to switch to appropriate positions
in related streams, discloses and suggests a "correlation" between the
streams (FF 2). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
disclosure of DeMoney teaches and suggests "current playback positions of
the [streams] are correlated while switching between playback" of the
streams as required by claim 1 (Ans. 14--15).
Although Appellants contend that "DeMoney requires that the trick
play stream be a periodic selection of frames from the normal stream" (App.
7
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
Br. 9), in Ddvfoney, the timestamps need not be consecutive, and may have
gaps (FF 2). Accordingly, we find Appellants' mere attorney argument that
"the combination of Eliyahu and DeMoney would require substantial
modification beyond what is disclosed" (App. Br. 9) unpersuasive.
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 9-11, 16, and 17, not
separately argued, over the combination of Eliyahu and DeMoney.
As per claim 3, Appellants argue that "Van De Streek does not pertain
to generating a content-based summary of a trick play stream ... Even more,
the manual generation of representative images does not pertain to the
manual generation of a trick play stream" (App. Br. 10). However, we agree
with the Examiner that Van De Streek discloses "generating a collection of
key frames ... wherein generating representative images for a representation
of an image sequence is performed in order to enable a browsing means"
(Ans. 17). In particular, we agree that "generating a collection of key
frames ... to enable a browsing means" (id.) discloses and suggests
receiving "a selection of portions of the media asset stream to include in the
content-based summary" (claim 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Appellants repeat the arguments
regarding Van De Streek and DeMoney (App. Br. 11-12), and add that Li
does not even reference trick play streams, and teaches against fast
forwarding or rewinding (App. Br. 16-17, referencing i-f 2 of Li). However,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that Li, at i-fi-12-3, discloses a non-
periodic method for selecting frames to be used in a content summary, which
discloses and suggests a trick play stream ("wherein the trick play stream
includes a content-based summary of the media asset stream") (Ans. 48-52).
8
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
\Ve also agree with the Examiner's finding that because Li attempts to
accomplish improvement in the field of fast-forwarding and rewind frame
selection, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Eliyahu,
DeMoney, and Van De Streek (Ans. 52-54).
As per claims 4 and 6, Appellants argue that Zimmerman does not use
a trick play stream; rather, "the video playback device of Zimmerman only
needs a single media asset stream received from a cable provider to fast
playback a media asset" (App. Br. 22-23). With respect to claim 6,
Appellants further argue that Zimmerman's presentation of "segments of a
media asset 'like' a movie trailer is not presenting a movie trailer" (App. Br.
24). However, we find no fault with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Eliyahu, DeMoney and Zimmerman discloses the limitations
of claims 4 and 6, first noting that the Examiner relies on Eliyahu and not
Zimmerman to disclose separate media asset and trick play streams (Ans.
63---65). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We further agree with the Examiner's reliance on Zimmerman to
disclose that a media asset stream, from which a trick play stream may be
generated, includes introductory material (Zimmerman, col. 7, 11. 1-10). We
note the language of claim 6 places no limitation on the content of the
content-based summary other than it "comprises one or more trailers."
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Zimmerman's media assets "in a manner similar to a movie trailer"
9
Appeal2014-005981
Application I 1/6I9,864
(Zimmerman, col. 7, 11. 1-10) for at least suggesting content-based summary
that "comprises one or more trailers" as recited.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Appellants argue that "the system of Shen
only appears to require a single stream" (App. Br. 26) which would not be
combinable with Eliyahu and DeMoney, and that Shen does not disclose an
extra media asset as required (App. Br. 25-27). We note that Shen is not
relied on by the Examiner to disclose separate media asset and trick play
streams. Further, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Shen
discloses trick play streams including one or more highlights or memorable
portions of scenes (Ans. 70-72). We also agree with the Examiner's finding
that the trick play streams of Shen disclose an "extra asset," specifically
"fast skim clips" used to mutually separate the trick play clips (Ans. 73-74).
As per claim 8, Appellants argue that "Carlucci does not disclose a
content-based summary comprising one or more director interviews" (App.
Br. 28). However, we agree with the Examiner's finding that i-f 8 of Carlucci
discloses that a media asset stream may be annotated with segmentation
messages indicating the location of interviews in a media asset stream (Ans.
77-79).
Regarding claim 2I, Appellants argue that Look's use of Ix, 2x and
3x speeds are "simply place holders that are used to refer to the three
different fast forward modes" and "a Ix fast forward speed would not fast
forward in a media asset stream ... unless the trick play stream included an
aperiodic selection of portions of the media asset" (App. Br. 3 I, 32). We
find, however, Examiner's reliance on Look to disclose and suggest trick
play streams "played at a Ix play-out speed" is not misplaced (Ans. 8I-83).
The cited portion of Look teaches that the "Ix, 2x, and 3x speeds are
IO
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
adjustable by the system to be any variable desired (e.g., 2x, 16x, and 32x),"
indicating that the Ix may be a "fast forward" speed as required by claim 21
(Look, col 19, 11. 47-51).
With respect to Van De Streek, Appellants further contend "indexing
is different than generating a trick play stream" and, thus, cannot be
combined with Eliyahu and DeMoney (App. Br. 21 ). However, Appellants
appear to view the combination in a different perspective than that of the
Examiner. The issue here is not whether the skilled artisan would have
bodily incorporated the entire system of Van De Streek, into the entire
system of Eliyahu and DeMoney, to provide improvements in the
organization of trick play streams in a single stream environment as shown
by Van De Streek, and which is inconsistent with Eliyahu and DeMoney.
Rather, the issue is whether the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon reading Van
De Streek, Eliyahu and DeMoney, would have found it obvious to provide a
generation of key frames as a means for producing a trick play stream, as a
content-based summary of a media stream, and to apply that method to the
combined teachings ofEliyahu and DeMoney.
As the Examiner points out, each of the references relates to the
generation of trick play streams (Ans. 18-20). Further, Eliyahu states that
any known method for generating trick play streams may be applied to its
system (id.). We therefore agree with the Examiner that Van De Streek does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage providing a plurality of
media streams including at least one trick play stream. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
11
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, Appellants have presented no evidence that providing a means for
selecting key frames to determine a trick play stream would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Thus, we conclude that it would have been well within the skill of one
skilled in the art to combine Van De Streek's teachings with those of
Eliyahu and DeMoney in the same field of endeavor. We agree with the
Examiner that:
a person of ordinary skill would have obtained knowledge
gleaned from the prior art disclosing known systems and
methods for the generation of frames or key frames to produce
a condensed video sequence summary in order to employ
creative steps and inferences for applying any of the prior art
methods in the generation of trick play streams.
(Ans.19-20). Such an implementation would have been well within the skill
of the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That is, the skilled artisan is "[a]
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We
agree with the Examiner that Appellants' invention is simply a combination
of familiar prior art teachings (as taught or suggested by the cited references)
that would have realized a predictable result (id.).
Although Appellants similarly argue that Li, Zimmerman, Carlucci
and Look, would not be appropriately combined with Eliyahu and
DeMoney, we find such arguments similarly unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's rejections of claims
3-8, 13, 19, and 21.
12
Appeal2014-005981
Application 11/619,864
Regarding claims 16 and 22-24, Appellants present similar arguments
relating to claims 13, 19, and claim 21 (App. Br. 55---62). We find no error
with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious
over the cited references (Ans. 33--48, 55---62, 86-89). Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate
herein by reference. Consequently, we have found no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 22-24.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13, 16, 17, 19, and
21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
13