Ex Parte HUNDEMER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14329619 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/329,619 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.
13-1800 5798
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
Appeal2017-001459
Application 14/329,619 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. App. Br. 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellant identifies Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC is the real party
in interest.. App. Br. 4.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we
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
September 9, 2016, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed October 30, 2015,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed July 11, 2014, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal2017-001459
Application 14/329,619
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 a video source;
determining a type of the identified video source;
using the determined type of the identified video source 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 received from the identified video source.
References and Re} ections
Rowe et al.
("Rowe")
Kunkel et al.
("Kunkel")
US 2001/0003846 Al
US 2006/0230427 Al
The claims stand rejected as follows:
June 14, 2001
Oct. 12, 2006
1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Kunkel. Final Act. 3-10.
2. Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Kunkel and Rowe. Final Act. 11-12.
2
Appeal2017-001459
Application 14/329,619
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 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 6-10.
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19,AND20: ANTICIPATIONBYKUNKEL.
Appellant contends Kunkel fails to disclose determining a type of the
"identified video source," as recited in independent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
App. Br. 6 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Kunkel discloses identification of the type of
content. Final Act. 2 ( citing Kunkel, ,r,r 105, 106) ( emphasis added).
Appellant contends the Examiner has fails to make a prima facie case
because the finding that Kunkel identifies a type of video content is
irrelevant to the claimed identification of a type of video source. App. Br. 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner shifts the ground of rejection and finds
Kunkel discloses an automation processor identifies a source of video.
Ans. 11 (citing Kunkel, ,r,r 60-62, 66-67, and 135).
Appellant contends Kunkel' s disclosure of identifying a particular
video source does not amount to an identification of the ~ of video
source, as claimed. Reply Br. 5 (citing App. Br. 7-8). Appellant argues
Kunkel discloses: "[t]he scheduler 64 may list media providers as a function
[of] the media content which they provide." Kunkel ,r 66. Appellant argues
identifying a particular video source does not identify the type of source. Id.
(quoting Kunkel, ,r 66).
3
Appeal2017-001459
Application 14/329,619
Without mapping the claimed limitations to the disclosures of Kunkel,
the Examiner non-specifically cites, inter alia, paragraph 135 which
discloses:
FIG. 7 illustrates a composite video feed 350 in accordance
with one non-limiting aspect of the present invention. The
composite video feed 350 includes a 4x3 matrix of video feeds
360-382 from a number of different genres. As shown, the
composite feed 350 includes three sports feeds, one on demand
feed, two news feeds, one cable favorites feed, two broadcast
feeds, and three movie feeds. The present invention is not
intended to be limited to this exemplary configurations and
contemplates the inclusion of more or less video feeds and
more or less genres.
Kunkel, ,r 135. The cited disclosure relates to a "genre" or type of video
content, but this passage provides no disclosure of a type of video source, as
claimed. 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, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20.
CLAIMS 4, 11, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KUNKEL AND ROWE.
Dependent Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected as obvious over
Kunkel, as applied to the independent claims, and Rowe. Ans. 11. The
4
Appeal2017-001459
Application 14/329,619
Examiner does not apply Rowe to cure the deficiencies in Kunkel, discussed
above. Id. Appellant argues all claims as a group. See App. Br. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
4, 11, and 18.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We reverse the rejection of Claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
5