Ex Parte JacobsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201411852957 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/852,957 09/10/2007 Mitch C. Jacobs PD-207091 2204 20991 7590 10/31/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2014 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 MITCH C. JACOBS ____________ Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KIMBERLY J. MCGRAW, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies as the real party in interest The DIRECTV Group, Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 13, 24, and 25 have been cancelled. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention generally relates to television broadcasting, and more particularly to monitoring content signals with or without insert material such as advertising. See Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 2, and 4, reproduced below, are representative: 1. A method for previewing a content signal comprising: communicating the content signal to an automation system; capturing an I-frame of the content signal at the automation system; communicating the I-frame to a monitoring display; and displaying the I-frame on the monitoring display. 2. A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising inserting insert material into the content signal to form a modified content signal, and wherein capturing an I-frame comprises capturing an I- frame of the content signal and an I-frame of the modified content signal. 4. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein prior to communicating the content signal, receiving the content signal and decoding the content signal. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–4, 7, 9–15, 18, and 20–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Haot et al. (hereinafter “Haot”) (US 2008/0219638 A1; published Sep. 11, 2008). Ans. 5. 2. Claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haot and Ellis (US 2007/0157248 A1; published Jul. 5, 2007). Ans. 8, 9. Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 3 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS “capturing an I-frame of the content signal at the automation station” and “displaying the I-frame on the monitoring display” Has the Examiner erred in finding Haot discloses “capturing an I- frame of the content signal at the automation station” and “displaying the I- frame on the monitoring display?” See., e.g., App. Br. 6. With regard to representative claim 1, the Examiner explains that Haot discloses a module which may take a source video stream, and generate and output MPEG video as a series of I-frames only (e.g., “50 Mbps I-frame only”). Ans. 10; see also Haot ¶ 61. According to the Examiner, the MPEG video, which may consist of I-frames only, is subsequently sent to workstation 127, which comprises a proxy editor player 128. Using the proxy editor player 128, the I-frames may be displayed on the monitor of workstation 127 on a frame-by-frame basis (by scrolling). Ans. 11, 12. Appellant characterizes the Examiner’s rejection as equating decoding an MPEG stream with “capturing an I-frame,” without specifically identifying error in the Examiner’s finding that Hoat teaches an I-frame has been captured in either media services platform 101 (as part of the process of processing the video stream comprised of I-frames only) or workstation 127 (in decoding the video and displaying an I-frame from the video). App. Br. 6, 7; Reply Br. 2-4. For example, Appellant asserts “decoding an MPEG stream does not equate to capturing an I-frame,” based on its unsupported contention that “[c]apturing an I-frame requires a more affirmative act than merely decoding and displaying an MPEG video stream, such as actual isolation of the I-frame.” Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 4 argument. Neither the claim language nor specification (which does not expressly define “capturing”) support construing Haot to require a “more affirmative act” than what is disclosed in Haot. Further, even under Appellant’s unsupported proposed construction, Appellant does not sufficiently explain why displaying only a selected I-frame in Haot, as part of the frame-by-frame scrolling process, is not an isolation of an I-frame. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner reasonably found Haot discloses “capturing an I-frame of the content signal at the automation station.” Appellant further contends Haot fails to disclose “displaying the I- frame on the monitoring display.” App. Br. 7. Although Appellant admits Haot discloses a user being able to scroll through frames of a video on a display, Appellant contends the frames are not a display of “the I-frames” captured in the “capturing an I-frame” step of claim 1. Reply Br. 4. As an initial matter, because we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding Haot discloses “capturing an I-frame,” we are not persuaded Haot fails to disclose displaying “the I-frame.” The Examiner reasonably found that, when the MPEG video stream is “I-frame only,” for example, each displayed frame (while scrolling frame by frame) is an I-frame. Ans. 12, 13. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner reasonably found Haot discloses “displaying the I-frame on the monitoring display.” We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 20, for which Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues3 (App. Br. 13); (3) dependent claims 3, 7, 9, and 10, not argued 3 To the extent Appellant contends Haot does not disclose “an automation system that receives the content signal,” and “communicates the I-frame to Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 5 separately (App. Br. 5, 12); and (4) dependent claims 5, 6, and 8, for which Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues (App. Br. 14, 15). “inserting insert material into the content signal . . . capturing an I-frame of the content signal and an I-frame of the modified content signal” Has the Examiner erred in finding Haot discloses “inserting insert material into the content signal to form a modified content signal, and wherein capturing an I-frame comprises capturing an I-frame of the content signal and an I-frame of the modified content signal?” App. Br. 9. With regard to claim 2, Appellant first contends that, although Haot discloses the ability to edit a content signal in a proxy editor, it does not disclose inserting insert material into the content signal to form a modified content signal. App. Br. 9–11. However, the Examiner explains that the video stream in Haot may include advertisements inserted into the media stream. Ans. 14, citing Haot ¶ 57; see also Haot ¶ 58, 69. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner reasonably found insert material is inserted into the content signal in Haot to form a modified content signal. Next, Appellant contends “capturing an I-frame of the content signal and an I-frame of the modified content signal” requires an I-frame to be captured from a content signal and another I-frame to be captured from a modified content signal. Reply 4–5. Appellant’s argument therefore implies the content signal and modified content signal must be two distinct signals within the automation system, and that both signals must be processed the monitoring display,” Appellant provides neither support in the subsection of the Appeal Brief titled “Claims 20–22,” nor any new arguments beyond what it argues with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 6 together as distinct signals. However, Appellant’s contention is not commensurate with the scope of claim 2. The content signal and modified content signal need not be processed together (i.e., they can be processed at separate times) to capture an I-frame. Nor must the content signal and modified content signal be two distinct signals. As we discuss with respect to claim 1, in Haot the content signal may be processed, and an I-frame captured from it. Likewise, in Haot the modified content signal (which contains the content signal) may be processed and I-frames (from both the insert material and the content signal material) captured from it. See, e.g., Ans. 14; Haot ¶ 58. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner reasonably found Haot discloses “wherein capturing an I-frame comprises capturing an I-frame of the content signal and an I-frame of the modified content signal.” We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) dependent claim 2; and (2) dependent claims 21 and 22, for which Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues4. (App. Br. 14). “prior to communicating the content signal, receiving the content signal and decoding the content signal” Has the Examiner erred in finding Haot discloses “prior to communicating the content signal, receiving the content signal and decoding the content signal” as recited in claim 4 App. Br. 11. Based on Appellant’s arguments, Appellant implies the decoded content signal is the signal provided to the automation system, and that in the context of dependent claim 4, the term “content signal” in independent 4 To the extent Appellant contends claims 21 and 22 are not anticipated by Hoat due to their dependence on claim 20, Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues not already addressed elsewhere in this Decision. Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 7 claim 1 should be read to mean “decoded content signal.” App. Br. 11, 12. However, such a reading is incorrect. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, does not recite that the “decoded” content signal is what is communicated to the automation system, or recite “capturing an I-frame of the decoded content signal.” Accordingly, based on Appellant’s argument, we are not persuaded of error.5 Nor are we persuaded of error under a proper reading of claim 4. As noted by the Examiner, prior to communicating a content signal to the automation system in Haot, an MPEG I-frame only signal is necessarily decoded by an MPEG decoder. Ans. 15, citing Haot ¶ 33; see also Ans. 6, 14, 15. Appellant does not explain with specificity why the decoding by the MPEG decoder is not considered to be performed prior to communicating the content signal to an automation system. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner reasonably found Haot discloses “prior to communicating the content signal, receiving the content signal and decoding the content signal.” We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4. “decoding the encoded content signal and the encoded modified content signal to form the content signal and the modified content signal” and “displaying the content signal and the modified content signal on the monitoring display” Has the Examiner erred in finding Haot discloses “decoding the encoded content signal and the encoded modified content signal to form the 5 We further note that even under Appellant’s view of claim 4, we are not persuaded of error because the video stream in Haot is decoded by video server 105, and the decoded signal is what is sent to the automation system. Ans. 14–15; Haot ¶ 61. Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 8 content signal and the modified content signal,” and “displaying the content signal and the modified content signal on the monitoring display?” App. Br. 13. In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner refers to the analysis with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 2 (Ans. 16), for which, for reasons discussed elsewhere in this Decision, we are not persuaded us error. With respect to claim 11, Appellant does not provide any arguments beyond stating Haot does not teach the forgoing claimed features, and the Examiner has not made a prima facia showing of anticipation. App. Br. 12, 13. Such assertions amount to mere attorney argument and are accorded little to no weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In addition, “it is not the function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art.” Ex Parte Shen, No. 2008-0418, 2008 WL 4105791 at * 9 (BPAI Sep. 4, 2008). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred with respect to “displaying the content signal and the modified content signal on the monitoring display.” With regard to “decoding,” the Examiner’s analysis with respect to claim 1 also explains that, where the video stream is MPEG, the video is necessarily decoded by an MPEG decoder prior to the proxy editor being used to cause the display of the I-frames. Ans. 10–12. The Examiner’s analysis with respect to claim 2 explains that the modified content signal may be MPEG and may be edited using the proxy editor. Ans. 13, 14. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred with respect to Appeal 2012-007514 Application 11/852,957 9 “decoding the encoded content signal and the encoded modified content signal to form the content signal and the modified content signal.” We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claim 11; (2) dependent claims 12, 14, 15, and 18, not argued separately (App. Br. 12, 13); and (3) dependent claim 23, for which Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues (App. Br. 14); and (4) dependent claims 16, 17, and 19, for which Appellant’s arguments raise no new issues (App. Br. 14, 15). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 and 14–23 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation