Ex Parte Lanham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12429218 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/429,218 0412412009
49443 7590 11/28/2016
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Drew Lanham
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.
P-80097-US 1596
EXAMINER
PHILLIPS, III, ALBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
USPTO@PearlCohen.com
Arch-USPTO@PearlCohen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DREW LANHAM, MARSAL GAV ALDA,
JOHN WILLCUTTS, and GORDON EDWARDS
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-27, 42-50, and 52-62. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Deyo (US 2009/0132918 Al; published May 21, 2009) and Chipman (US
2010/0161580 Al; published June 24, 2010). Final Act. 3-14.
Claims 42--45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Deyo and Denoue (US 2004/0021685 Al; published Feb. 5, 2004). Final
Act. 15-17.
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
Claims 46, 47, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chipman and Hounsell (US 2010/0161441 Al; published June
24, 2010). Final Act. 17-21.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chipman, Hounsell, and Lax (US 2009/0006375 Al; published Jan. 1,
2009). Final Act. 21-22.
Claims 52-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chipman and Denoue. Final Act. 22-30.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "providing access to multimedia."
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing access to
multimedia content, the method comprising:
accepting audio signals associated \~1ith a plurality of units of
multimedia content, each unit of multimedia content including one of the
audio signals;
accepting text content selected according to but not derived from a
unit of the multimedia content;
analyzing the text content independently of the multimedia content to
identify a candidate set of key words or phrases;
searching for presence of key words or phrases of interest in the audio
signal of the unit of multimedia content, the key words or phrases of interest
including the candidate set of key words or phrases; and
forming metadata representing the presence of the key words or
phrases of interest in the audio signal of the unit of multimedia content.
2
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
ANALYSIS
THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-27
The Examiner concludes claims 1-27 are indefinite. Final Act. 2-3;
see also Ans. 14--16.
The Examiner reasons:
[O]ne skilled in the art could not determine the scope of [claim
1] because it is unclear how text content can be 'selected
according to' multimedia content while at the same time not
'derived from' said content. This renders the claim vague and
indefinite. Claim 1 's dependent claims are rejected for the same
reason.
Final Act. 3.
Appellants present the following principal argument: [W]hen read in
light of the specification (e.g., Specification, Paragraph [0071 ]), the feature
in question is clear and definite." App. Br. 17; see also App. Br. 3
("Another inventive feature of Appellant[s'] claim 1 includes accepting text
content (e.g.; 140) selected according to but not derived from a unit of the
multimedia content (Specification, Paragraph [089]).").
We agree with Appellants' principal argument, and we conclude that
claims 1-27 meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
That is, we conclude that "selected according to" multimedia content is
broader than "derived from" the multimedia content.
Spec. i-f 89 discloses a user providing tentative keywords. Spec. i-f 90
(emphasis added) further discloses:
In some examples, the tentative keywords are not explicitly
provided by a user. Rather, they are determined in an automated
manner by the system. One example of such automated
processing involves first automatically identifying text material
associated with the multimedia content (e.g., based on forward
or reverse hyperlinks, index information, file structures, naming
3
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
conventions, etc.), and then extracting tentative keywords from
that content.
Thus, the Specification discloses examples of text material selected
according to a unit of the multimedia content, but not derived from the unit
of the multimedia content.
Therefore, we conclude that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood what is claimed when the claims are read in light of the
Specification. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness
rejection of claims 1-27.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-27 OVER DEYO AND CHIPMAN
The Examiner finds Deyo and Chipman teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 3---6; see also Ans. 2-9.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1.
[B]oth Deyo and Ch[i]pman individually address a selection of
keywords or a keyword-based query for a multimedia item: Deyo
based on manually or automatically determined tags, and
Ch[i]pman based on a subject determination and using an
ontology. Neither alone or in a proper combination discloses or
suggests the further step of searching for the keywords in the
audio of the multimedia item and forming metadata for the item
using presence determined by the searching as the Examine[r]
contends as the basis of the rejection of claim 1.
App. Br. 10.
11.
Chipman never describes or suggests that an audio signal
associated with the media segment from which the enhanced
search string is derived is searched for presence of the terms in
the enhanced search string. Indeed, Chipman may at best
describe "automated searching for related content to a media
4
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
item being consumed by a viewer" (Chipman, Paragraph
[0087]). This is very different from "searching for presence of
key words or phrases of interest in the audio signal" where the
keywords of interest include a predetermined "candidate set of
key words or phrases."
App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 1--4.
111. "[I]t seems that nothing would be gained by searching the audio
tracks of Deyo 's multimedia files for Deyo 's index terms." App. Br. 11.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner's findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' arguments (i), (ii), and (iii),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds Deyo teaches the recited accepting audio
signals, accepting text content, and analyzing the text content to identify a
candidate set of key words or phrases. Final Act. 3--4. We agree with and
adopt these findings as our own.
The Examiner finds Chipman teaches the recited searching for
presence of key words or phrases, and the recited forming metadata. Final
Act. 5-6 (citing Chipman i-fi-120, 57, 58, 79, 87). The Examiner reasons:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention
of Deyo to include the feature of Chipman. One would have
been motivated to make this modification because it provides
desired functionality for finding media content relevant to a
5
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
particular interest of the consumer, particularly at the sub-asset
level as taught by Chipman[.]
Final Act. 6 (citing Chipman i-f 14).
In particular, Chipman (i-f 57) discloses:
For instance, software 206 is now available that can capture the
closed caption stream within a media asset and analyze it for
subject matter. Further, software 207 is available that can analyze
the audio portion of a multimedia stream and detect speech
within the audio stream and convert the speech to text (which can
further be analyzed for subject matter, just like the closed caption
stream).
Chipman (i-f 79) discloses: "[T]he system will identify keywords
derived from the subject matter of the media content[.]"
Thus, we find Chipman teaches (claim 1) "searching for presence of
key words or phrases of interest in the audio signal of the unit of multimedia
content"; and (claim 1) "forming metadata representing the presence of the
key words or phrases of interest in the audio signal of the unit of multimedia
content."
Regarding (claim 1) "the key words or phrases of interest including
the candidate set of key words or phrases," when Chipman's technique of
searching an audio signal and forming metadata is combined with Deyo' s
audio signal and Deyo' s candidate set of key words or phrases, modifying
Deyo to search the audio signal for the candidate set of key words or phrases
to confirm relevance of the key words or phrases (see Chipman i-fl4) would
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
6
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
either in the same field or a ditforent one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative-a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-27, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 42--45 OVER DEYO AND DENOUE
The Examiner finds Deyo and Denoue teach all limitations of claim
42. Final Act. 15-16; see also Ans. 9-10.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Denoue's tags associate a user's identity with an annotation
created by the user. This is clearly not the same as 'creating a tag
associating the user-supplied annotation to the multimedia source."' App.
Br. 13.
11.
Denoue's user identification tag 250 is not "created based on a
result of the detection" where the Examiner seems to construe
"the detection" as corresponding to Denoue's textual similarity
comparison which does not meet the limitations of the claim as
a whole. Indeed, it appears that Denoue's user identification tag
250 is simply created and associated with an annotation at the
time of creation of the annotation by a user.
7
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
App. Br. 13.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner's findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' arguments (i) and (ii), the Examiner finds
Denoue (i1i1 64, 65) teaches the recited "detecting whether the text source
contains a representation of one or more of the identified components of the
user-supplied annotation"; and Denoue (i-f 97) teaches the recited "based on a
result of the detection, creating a tag associating the user-supplied annotation
to the multimedia source." Final Act. 15-16 (citing Denoue i1i1 64, 97); see
also Ans. 10 (citing Denoue i1i165, 97). We adopt these findings as our own.
Denoue (i-f 64) discloses comparing annotations. Denoue (i-f 65)
discloses determining high value annotations by comparing annotations.
Denoue (i-f 97) discloses: "The user interface 200 [(Figure 8)] includes one or
more annotation display boxes 215 in which annotation icons 220 are
displayed. Each annotation display box 215 includes a user identification
tag 250 that identifies the user that created the annotations."
Denoue's annotation icon 220 is a tag associating a user-supplied
annotation to the multimedia source. A skilled artisan would have
understood that Denoue (i-fi-f 64, 65, 97) teaches the annotation icon 220 for a
high value annotation is created based on the result of Denoue' s (i-f 65)
comparison of annotations, which the Examiner maps to the recited
detecting.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 42, as well as
claims 43--45, which are not separately argued with particularity.
8
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 46, 4 7, 49, AND 50 OVER CHIPMAN
AND HOUNSELL
The Examiner finds Chipman and Hounsell teach all limitations of
claim 46. Final Act. 17-20; see also Ans. 11.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Hounsell may at best describe a conventional method of
presenting advertisements to viewers wherein advertisements are
presented between segments of a media item. In particular,
Hounsell's paragraph [0052] clearly describes that the invention
may be applied to situations where "a provide of media content
offers space or time within that content." Nowhere does
Hounsell describe or suggest "synchronizing the presentation of
the selected advertisement with the presentation of the
multimedia source such that the presentation of the selected
advertisement occurs at the temporal position in the multimedia
source which corresponds to the search term which is mapped to
the selected advertisement."
App. Br. 14.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner's findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Hounsell teaches the recited (claim 46)
"synchronizing the presentation of the selected advertisement with the
presentation of the multimedia source such that the presentation of the
selected advertisement occurs at the temporal position in the multimedia
source which corresponds to the search term which is mapped to the selected
advertisement." Final Act. 19-20 (citing Hounsell i-f 55). We adopt this
finding as our own.
Hounsell (i-f 55) discloses:
In step 311, the subject matter information about the
advertisement is run through the media segment database to
locate media sub-segments with subject matter similar to the
9
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
subject matter of the advertisement. In step 313, the operator
provides the advertiser with a list of recommended media
segments within which the advertiser may wish to run its
advertisement.
Contrary to Appellants' principal argument, Hounsell recommends
media segments (temporal positions in the media source) within which to
run an advertisement. See Hounsell i-f55; see also Ans. 11 (citing Hounsell
i1i143, 44, 55) ("The subject matter (multimedia source) and ad are
synchronized based on said search terms (keywords)."). Hounsell (i1i143-
44) discloses utilizing keywords for synchronization.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 46, as well as
claims 47, 49, and 50, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 48 OVER CHIPMAN, HOUNSELL, AND
LAX
The Examiner finds Chipman, Hounsell, and Lax teach all limitations
of claim 48. Final Act. 21-22.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claim 48. See App.
Br. 8-17, Reply Br. 1--4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 48 for
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 46, from which claim 48
depends.
10
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 52---62 OVER CHIPMAN AND
DENOUE
Claims 52-61
The Examiner finds Chipman and Denoue teach all limitations of
claim 52. Final Act. 22-24; see also Ans. 12-14.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
Denoue may at best describe comparing two or more annotations
to determine a similarity between the annotations. In particular,
Denoue describes that "annotations can be compared based on
their textual similarity to other annotations. Where annotations
include text, such as notes taken by the user regarding the
multimedia or video stream, a comparison of the text strings of
the annotations can be performed to determine the similarity
between the two or more annotations[.]"
App. Br. 15 (citing Denoue i-f 64).
Denoue never describes or suggests "searching an audio signal"
as part of determining the similarity between two or more
annotations. Indeed, Denoue only describes comparing
annotations (i.e., text). This is very different than "searching the
audio signal of the unit of multimedia content for presence of the
key words or phrases included in the candidate set of key words
or phrases" as is required by independent claim 52.
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 4.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner's findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Denoue teaches the recited (claim 52)
forming a validated set of key words or phrases for the unit of
multimedia content including searching the audio signal of the
unit of multimedia content for presence of the key words or
phrases included in the candidate set of key words or phrases
associated with the unit of multimedia content[.]
Final Act. 24 (citing Denoue i-f 64). We adopt this finding as our own.
11
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
Denoue (il 64) discloses
[A ]nnotations can be compared relative to the frames with which
those annotations are associated. For example, annotations that
are made with respect to frames in the multimedia or video
stream can be compared in terms of the similarity of the frames
against which the annotations are made. Annotations that are
associated with the same cluster are more similar than
annotations associated with different clusters.
Denoue (i1 65) discloses determining high value annotations by
comparing annotations.
Thus, Denoue discloses the recited (claim 52) "forming a validated set
of key words or phrases for the unit of multimedia content" (Denoue' s high
value annotations) "including searching the audio signal of the unit of
multimedia content for presence of the key words or phrases included in the
candidate set of key words or phrases associated with the unit of multimedia
content" (Denoue 's comparing annotations).
In reaching our decision, we adopt as our own the Examiner's
additional reasoning: "Examiner interprets 'searching the audio signal' as
broadly including any searching technique that can be used to search audio
content. Denoue teaches searching a multimedia stream by searching
annotations related to the media stream." Ans. 13.
In adopting the Examiner's reasoning, and disagreeing with
Appellants' reasoning, we emphasize that in order for Appellants' to search
the audio signal for key words, the audio signal must be in some searchable
form.
Thus, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Denoue' s comparing
annotations (i.e., text) is within the broad scope of the recited (claim 52)
"searching the audio signal of the unit of multimedia content for presence of
12
Appeal2015-006082
Application 12/429,218
the key words or phrases included in the candidate set of key words or
phrases[.]"
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 52, as well as
claims 53---61, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claim 62
The Examiner finds Chipman and Denoue teach all limitations of
claim 62. Final Act. 28-30; see also Ans. 14.
Regarding claim 62, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 52. See App. Br. 16, Reply Br. 4.
For the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 52, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 62.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27, 42-50, and 52---62 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
13