Ex Parte Lau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13116669 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/116,669 05/26/2011 Raymond Lau
104043 7590 08/02/2016
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
1350 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
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.
RHI14-0l 5958
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
patentdocket@tarterkrinsky.com
sformicola@tarterkrinsky.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND LAU
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669 1
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Ramp Holdings, Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669
Invention
The claimed invention is related to the alignment of metadata.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving two or more variations of a single underlying piece of
content, each variation of the single underlying piece of content
including metadata;
using a text alignment technique to correlate the metadata of the
two or more variations of the single underlying piece of content; and
merging multiple sets of the metadata into one multi-track set
from the correlation.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-17, 23, 25-30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Scoggins et al (US 2013/0124203
Al; publ. May 16, 2013).
Claims 3-7, 18-21, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Scoggins and Laaser (US 8,280, 723 B 1; Oct. 2,
2012).
Claims 8 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scoggins, Laaser, and Smolyar et al. (US 7,277,496 B2;
Oct. 2, 2007).
Claims 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scoggins, Laaser, and Thong et al. (US 2002/0010916 Al;
publ. Jan. 24, 2002).
2
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 16, and 29
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 1,
16, and 29, because Scoggins fails to disclose "receiving two or more
variations of a single underlying piece of content, each variation of the
single underlying piece of content including metadata," as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 16 and
29. Br. 16-18. Appellant argues Scoggins is directed to methods involving
a script, and that elements of a script are not variations of a single underlying
piece of content, but multiple distinct content entities within the script that
collectively constitute a script. Br. 17. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Scoggins discloses identifying and
aligning some or all entities within a script includes receiving script data,
processing the script data, receiving video content data (e.g., video and audio
data), processing the video content data, and synchronizing the script data
with the video content data to generate time-aligned script data, and
categorizing each regular or proper noun entity within the time-aligned
script data. Ans. 3 (citing Scoggins, i-fi-f 145-149). Thus, the Examiner
3
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669
reasons, and we agree, video data, audio data, and script data are different
variations of a movie/video to be aligned in order to display to
users/viewers. Id.
Although not specifically cited by the Examiner, we note that the
Specification explains that the recited same "underlying piece of content":
can have multiple sets of metadata attached to slight variations
of the content. For example, a movie may include a script, which
includes dividing into scenes with scene metadata like
characters, location, time-of-day. The same movie may include a
closed caption file that includes descriptors, like "[girl
laughing]," for example. Further, the same movie can include a
specification of musical accompaniments, which might identify
the music played for various scenes in the script. In this example,
the words in the script will not match the words in the closed
caption file exactly because of errors in the closed-captioning as
well as directorial artistic license during the filming process.
Similarly, the music specification may use variants of the scene
names compared to the script.
Spec. i121.
Therefore, Appellant's argument that elements of a script are not
variations of a single underlying piece of content is unpersuasive.
Appellant also contends that Scoggins fails to disclose "using a text
alignment technique to correlate the metadata of the two or more variations
of the single underlying piece of content." Br. 18-20. Appellant argues
Scoggins operates on metadata contained within the script for possible
improvement of speech to text analysis while Appellant's claimed invention
uses a text alignment technique to correlate the metadata of the two or more
variations of the single underlying piece of content. Br. 20.
4
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Scoggins discloses:
analyzing and synchronizing the structured but untimed
information in a tagged script document and the text resulting
from the S TT transcription stored in metadata repository to
generate a time-aligned script data; [] script metadata may be
used to record all script metadata and entities and the
interrelationships between all entities; [] a metadata time
synchronization service aligns elements of transcript with
corresponding portions of script data to generate time-aligned
script data; ... text alignment technique between a written script
text phrase and e.g. raw speech transcript phrase for example,
produced from a recorded dialogue.
Ans. 4 (citing Scoggins, Figs. 7A, 7B; i-fi-f 149, 157, 167).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Scoggins fails to disclose using a text alignment technique to correlate
metadata of an underlying piece of content.
Appellant further contends Scoggins fails to disclose "merging
multiple sets of the metadata into one multi-track set from the correlation."
Br. 20, 21. Appellant argues that Scoggins' merging of timecode
information with words is not merging multiple sets of the metadata into one
multi-track set from the correlation. Id.
The Examiner notes, however, that the Specification explains that the
correlated metadata includes timestamps and that:
[ e Jach metadata source, e.g., the script, closed-captioned file, and
so forth, can be text-aligned to the speech to text transcript and
then have their metadata merged based on occurring at the same
time on the timeline.
Ans. 5 (citing Spec. i-fi-1 7, 20).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Scoggins discloses that a video
5
Appeal2015-004237
Application 13/116,669
description content track is merged with the relating elements of a script to
provide a final time aligned document/video. Br. 6 (citing Scoggins i-fi-f 187-
190). Scoggins discloses that words with associated timestamps/timecodes
are metadata that can be used for merging multiple sets of metadata into one
multi-track set from a correlation. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Scoggins fails to disclose merging multiple sets of metadata into one multi-
track set from a correlation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 16, and 29.
Remaining Claims
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to claims 2-15, 17-28, and 30-33. See Br. 21. As such, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more
substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated
separately.") Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6