Ex Parte Hsieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12014105 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/014,105 01/15/2008 Ming-Kai Hsieh PCLP0026USA 9922
27765 7590 12/30/2016
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 506
MERRIFIELD, VA 22116
EXAMINER
TRAORE, FATOUMATA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
Patent. admin. uspto. Rev @ naipo .com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING-KAI HSIEH and PEI-HSUAN TU
Appeal 2016-001691
Application 12/014,10s1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Cyberlink Corp. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-001691
Application 12/014,105
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to interactive
audio-video playback allowing data to be displayed while a multimedia film
is played, without making changes to the multimedia film itself. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A multimedia playback method for an interactive
operation function in a first player, comprising:
generating a designated file by a user comprising a plurality of
data provided by the user and playback information,
wherein the plurality of data provided by the user
comprise at least one of incidental music, image and
subtitles to be displayed with a multimedia film; and
wherein the playback information comprises a play time and a
display location of the data of the designated file
corresponding to a time location of the multimedia film;
storing the designated file in a storage device through an
interface provided by the first player; and
displaying, by the first player, the multimedia film with each
data in the designated file by incorporating the data in the
designated file into the multimedia film as a single
presentation according to the corresponding play time
and the display location indicated by the playback
information, wherein the original multimedia film is
unmodified during playback without creating a new
multimedia film.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (WO 2008/060655 A2, pub. May 22, 2008)
and Hua et al. (US 2007/0101271 Al, pub. May 3, 2007). (Final Act. 5—8.)
2
Appeal 2016-001691
Application 12/014,105
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of O’Brien
and Hua teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, “displaying
. . . the multimedia film with each data in the designated file by
incorporating the data in the designated file into the multimedia film as a
single presentation,” and the similar limitation recited in independent claim
16. (App. Br. 5—7.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act.
5—8) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Ans. 3—8). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding O’Brien and Hua teach or suggest the independent claim
limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in O’Brien of an
apparatus for applying and displaying synchronized comments with media
data. (Final Act. 6; O’Brien p. 17,11. 7—9, p. 21,1. 24—p. 22,1. 4, p. 44,11. 1—
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 29, 2015); the Reply
Brief (filed Nov. 12, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 9, 2014);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 16, 2015) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal 2016-001691
Application 12/014,105
5, p. 66,11. 12—15, p. 68,11. 4—6, p. 69,11. 10-13.) The Hua reference is
relied on for other claim limitations not at issue. (Final Act. 6.)
Appellants argue the comments in O’Brien, which the examiner
compares to the claimed subtitles, are ‘“tied to’ the video, not ‘incorporated
into’ the video. The video and the comment are not considered as a single
presentation while user plays back the video.” (App. Br. 6.)
Appellants are incorrect. As found by the Examiner, O’Brien does
incorporate the synchronized comments into the video. (Final Act. 6; Ans.
6—7.) For example, O’Brien states:
Another proposal of the invention includes an editing
capability that includes, but is not limited to, functions such as
abilities to add video titles, captions and labels for sub-
segments in time of the video. . . .
Much other data may be displayed to the user along with
the DEVS A including metadata such as . . . comments made on
the video as a whole or on just parts of the video. . . .
At the commenter's option, synchronized comments can
be tied to a chosen thumbnail or to the time line of the video so
that the synchronized comment appears as the video is played at
the time of that thumbnail or at the point in the timeline when it
was entered.
[EJmploy synchronized comments incorporating a variety of
closed caption language translations as the user requests:
Ukrainian, Japanese, English, etc.
(O’Brien p. 17,11. 7-9, p. 44,11. 1-5, p. 66,11. 12-15, p. 68,11. A-6.)
Appellants also argue “the comments [in O’Brien] are stored in a
separate file that is linked to the video.” (App. Br. 6.) This argument is
unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as
confirmed by the fact that the subtitles and other data in the embodiments of
4
Appeal 2016-001691
Application 12/014,105
the Application at issue are also stored in a file separate from the multimedia
file. (Spec. 119.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1 and 16. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 2—15 and 17—25, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity. (App. Br. 8.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—25.
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
5