Ex Parte HUNDEMER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14329632 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/329,632 07/11/2014 HankJ. HUNDEMER
146701 7590 09/24/2018
McDonnellBoehnenHulbert&Berghoff LLP/Tribune Media
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13-1801 3714
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANK J. HUNDEMER
Appeal2017-001458
Application 14/329,632 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20.2 App. Br. 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 3
1 Appellant identifies Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 4.
2 Appellant (see App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4) and the Examiner (see Final
Office Action Summary) each state claims 1-20 are pending and stand
rejected. However, we do not reach the merits of claims 2, 9, and 16
because they are listed in the Claims Appendix as "Cancelled."
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we
Appeal2017-001458
Application 14/329,632
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of performing functions or acts related
to digital video effects (DVE). See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method comprising:
accessing data representing a traffic schedule for a
television broadcast;
selecting a record from the traffic schedule, wherein the
record identifies video content;
determining a type of the identified video content,
wherein determining the type of the identified video content
comprises determining that the identified video content is a
commercial;
using the determined type of the identified video content
as a basis to select a DVE; and
causing a computing device to run the selected DVE,
wherein running the selected DVE causes the computing device
to generate a modified version of an input video stream
representing the identified video content.
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 29, 2016, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed October 31, 2016, "Reply. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
August 30, 2016, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed October 30, 2015, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed July 11, 2014, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2017-001458
Application 14/329,632
References and Rejections
Rowe et al.
("Rowe")
US 2001/0003846 Al
The claims stand rejected as follows:
June 14, 2001
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by
Rowe. Final Act. 3-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20
in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider
Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 6-9.
CLAIMS 1, 3-8, 10-15, AND 17-20: ANTICIPATION BY ROWE.
The Examiner finds Rowe discloses that a record header identifies a
type of video content, as claimed, and the identified type forms the basis of a
selection of which DVE to apply. Final Act. 3 (citing Rowe, ,r,r 209,210).
Appellant contends Rowe fails to disclose "using the determined type
of the identified video content as a basis to select a DVE," as recited in
independent claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 7. Appellant argues the cited
portions of Rowe do not reference an IP datagram header, which Appellant
contends the Examiner interprets as determinative of the video content type.
Id. Appellant argues, moreover, Rowe does not disclose using information
from an IP datagram header to select a DVE. Id.
The Examiner's Answer shifts the grounds of rejection; the Examiner
now finds programming for a specific geographic area is received and, based
3
Appeal2017-001458
Application 14/329,632
on the content type (i.e., news, sports, weather) the content is forwarded to
an appropriate subsystem (DVE). Ans. 10 (citing Rowe, ,r,r 77, 119--121,
261, and 262).
Appellant contends the cited passages of Rowe disclose routing
content to a subsystem based upon the content, but are silent as to which
DVE the subsystem should apply. Reply 4.
Our review of the cited portions of Rowe fail to find any disclosure
relating to the selection of an appropriate DVE to apply. Moreover, the
Examiner fails to map the claimed limitations to the cited disclosure. This
disclosure fails to support an anticipation rejection. See Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e hold that the Board
is required to set forth in its opinions specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law adequate to form a basis for our review. In particular, we
expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by
limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and
satisfactory explanations for such findings.").
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims
1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20.
DECISION
WereversetherejectionofClaims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20under35
U.S.C. § 102.
REVERSED
4