Ex Parte Incorvia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13106511 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/106,511 05/12/2011 Andrew Incorvia 38053/09006 5442
27530 7590
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
100 North Tryon Street
42nd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202-4000
EXAMINER
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW INCORVIA
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,5111
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 9, 11—16, 18, 21, and 23—32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses the generation of “video data that includes both
video media and an interactive video layer” where a “selectable video object
1 Appellant identifies White Square Media, Inc., as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
may be selectable from the interactive video layer . . . [and] where the
selectable video object has a corresponding object function call defining an
action to be performed responsive to user selection of the selectable video
object.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations is
representative:
1. A method comprising:
generating video data that includes both video media and
an interactive video layer;
providing the video data to a remote user via a network;
and
enabling the remote user to present the video data with or
without the interactive video layer based on user selection of an
option to turn the interactive video layer on and off,
respectively,
wherein the interactive video layer includes objects
mapped to corresponding identifiers associated with additional
information about respective ones of the objects,
at least one defined selectable video object corresponds
to a mapped object, the selectable video object being selectable
from the interactive video layer during rendering of the video
data responsive to the interactive video layer being turned on,
where the selectable video object has a corresponding object
function call defining an action to be performed responsive to
user selection of the selectable video object, the selectable
video object being presented for user selection on a three
dimensional video display, and
at least one mapped object is associated with a plurality
of identifiers and, responsive to selection of a selected
selectable video object corresponding to the at least one
mapped object, a selected one of the plurality of identifiers is
presented to the remote user based on a comparison of bids
2
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
associated with the plurality of identifiers, wherein the bids
correspond to a determined location of the remote user, and
wherein generating the video data further comprises
providing an index of a plurality of selectable video objects,
each one of the selectable video objects being user selectable
from the index to access at least one location from the video
media at which a corresponding mapped object is located.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 9, 11—13, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dakss (US 2002/
0078446 Al; publ. June 20, 2002), Sprague (US 2002/0087974 Al; publ.
July 4, 2002), Mclntire (US 2007/0250901 Al; publ. Oct. 25, 2007), and
Glomski (US 2012/0306795 Al; publ. Dec. 6, 2012). Non-Final Act. 4—8.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 14, 16, 25, 26, 30, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dakss, Sprague, Mclntire,
Glomski, and Rogers (US 2005/0229227 Al; publ. Oct. 13, 2005). Non-
Final Act. 9—10.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dakss, Sprague, Mclntire, Glomski, Rogers, and
Lemmons (US 2003/0028873 Al; publ. Feb. 6, 2003). Non-Final Act. 11.
The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dakss, Sprague, Mclntire, Glomski, and Allport (US
6,567,984 Bl; publ. May 20, 2003). Non-Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dakss, Sprague, Mclntire, Glomski, and Pack (US
2001/0052133 Al; publ. Dec. 13, 2001). Non-Final Act. 12.
3
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Dakss teaches a hyperlinked video broadcast system with authoring
tool 24. Dakss 42-44, Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that this system
teaches or suggests generating video data that includes both video media
and an interactive video layer, as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4.
Mclntire teaches a system in which a user can bookmark supplemental
content mapped for later viewing. Mclntire 1269; Fig. 31. The Examiner
finds that Mclntire’s bookmarking teaches or suggests modifying the
generating of video data, as taught or suggested by Dakss, to comprise
providing an index of a plurality of selectable video objects, each one of the
selectable video objects being user selectable from the index to access at
least one location from the video media at which a corresponding mapped
object is located. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 14—15. The Examiner notes that
the Specification similarly discloses providing an option to select a clip for
viewing. Ans. 15 (citing Spec. 1 53).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “[t]he cited portion of
Mclntire is not directed toward generation of the video data.” Br. 7—8
(emphasis added). However, the Examiner relies on Dakss, not Mclntire, to
teach or suggest generating video data. Non-Final Act. 4. Appellant’s
argument regarding Mclntire alone does not persuasively address the
4
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Dakss
and Mclntire.
Appellant further argues the “cited portion of Mclntire also does not
address, in any way, ‘an index of a plurality of selectable video objects’ or
the characteristics of an index, specifically ‘each one of the selectable video
objects being user selectable from the index to access at least one location
from the video media at which a corresponding mapped object is located.’”
Br. 8. However, Appellant’s conclusory contention does not persuasively
distinguish the claimed index of a plurality of selectable objects from
Mclntire’s bookmarks, mapped by the Examiner to the claimed index. Non-
Final Act. 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Dakss and Mclntire teaches or suggests “wherein generating the video data
further comprises providing an index of a plurality of selectable video
objects, each one of the selectable video objects being user selectable from
the index to access at least one location from the video media at which a
corresponding mapped object is located,” as recited in claim 1.
Mclntire further teaches: (1) use of “a library entry for an article [that]
includes an amount of money that a provider of the article (e.g., a seller) is
willing to pay to have the article depicted in a media stream and/or to have
the article associated with supplemental content via a mapping” (Mclntire
1169) and (2) “specific attributes of a given item of supplemental content or
a given portion of a mapping may be made conditional with respect to
viewing location” {id. 1218), with constraints including “variables
describing knowledge regarding the viewer viewing the media stream” such
as viewer’s zip code {id. 1361). The Examiner finds that these
supplemental content bids and constraints teach or suggest a selected one of
5
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
the plurality of identifiers is presented to the remote user based on a
comparison of bids associated with the plurality of identifiers, wherein the
bids correspond to a determined location of the remote user, as recited in
claim 1.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
[a]lthough[] Mclntire discloses a bid process for the placement
of content into a media stream, and such content is possibly
correlated to viewer location the result is that the objects or
content that is actually in the media stream is influenced by
viewer location. That is not the case with the claimed
invention. To the contrary, the objects in the video data are
selectable video objects that correspond to objects already in
the video data. The selection of the selectable video object then
causes presentation of a selected one of a plurality of
identifiers, where the selected one is selected based on bids that
correspond to the location of the remote user.
Basically, the media itself in Mclntire has content
influenced by the location of the viewer. However, to the
contrary, the media itself in the claimed invention (i.e., the
video data) is modified with the selectable video object, which
is in no way determined based on location of the viewer.
Instead, the selectable video object (which is not determined
based on viewer location) can be selected to present a selected
one of the identifiers, and it is the selected one of the identifiers
that is selected based on bids that correspond to the location of
the user[.] Accordingly, Mclntire fails to teach or suggest “a
selected one of the plurality of identifiers is presented to the
remote user based on a comparison of bids associated with the
plurality of identifiers, wherein the bids correspond to a
determined location of the remote user” as recited in
independent Claims 1 and 13.
Br. 8-9.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly notes, “there is no actual limitation that the bids must be in
6
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
response to determining a user location or that the bids are somehow based
on a user location. Simply the bids need to relate to the user location.” Ans.
16. That is, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
the claimed invention given a broad, but reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification.
Furthermore, the Examiner correctly finds that Mclntire’s mapping of
information includes bids with demographics (e.g., constraints based on a
viewer’s location) that correspond to other data in the mapping. Id. For
instance, Mclntire teaches including within a mapping of a given item of
supplemental content “information regarding the specific type of viewer to
whom the given item of supplemental content should be presented.”
Mclntire 1216. An example of the type of information that could be used
includes demographics such as the viewer’s zip code or location. Id. 1361.
Thus, a bid that includes an amount of money a provider is willing to pay to
have an article associated with supplemental content via a mapping
(Mclntire 1169) would correspond to a determined location of the remote
user (i.e., the viewer) in the event the supplemental content’s potential
audience is limited by viewer location {id. H 216, 218, and 361). We agree
with the Examiner that this combination of demographic constraints and bids
teaches or suggests “a selected one of the plurality of identifiers is presented
to the remote user based on a comparison of bids associated with the
plurality of identifiers, wherein the bids correspond to a determined location
of the remote user,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further contends that “[a]t no point does the Examiner
consider the claimed invention as a whole in light of the prior art, as such the
rejections are impermissibly tainted with hindsight bias.” Br. 13. However,
7
Appeal 2016-004340
Application 13/106,511
Appellant does not present persuasive evidence that the Examiner relied on
impermissible hindsight reasoning, but merely asserts that Examiner’s
reliance on multiple references in making the rejections is “strong evidence
of hindsight bias.” Br. 12. While the Examiner uses eight references in
total—with four to six of those references used in each of the rejections—the
criterion for what is obvious “is not the number of references, but what they
would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”
In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11—16, 18, 21,
and 23—32, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. Br.
13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 9, 11—16,
18, 21, and 23-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8