Ex Parte Lewis et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2019

13861234 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/861,234 04/11/2013
101198 7590 01/30/2019
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Justin Lewis
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.
25832.187 (L0187) 8133
EXAMINER
SOTO LOPEZ, JOSE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN LEWIS and KEVIN GREENE
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Google Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for displaying
annotated video content by mobile computing devices. Spec., Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first position identifier for a first annotation to
be overlaid over one or more frames of a video during
presentation of the video, wherein the first position identifier
defines a first position of the first annotation within the frames
where the first annotation is overlaid, and wherein the first
position is designed for presentation on a first display of a first
computing device;
presenting the video on a second display of a mobile
computing device, wherein the second display is smaller than the
first display, and wherein presentation of the first annotation on
the second display at the first position prevents the first
annotation from being readable by a user of the mobile
computing device within the second display;
modifying, by a processing device of the mobile
computing device, the first annotation, wherein modifying the
first annotation comprises repositioning the first annotation from
the first position in the frames of the video for the first display to
a second position in the frames of the video for the second
display in view of a screen size of the second display to make the
first annotation readable by the user within the second display,
and wherein the second positon in the frames of the video is
different than the first positon in the frames of the video; and
presenting the first annotation overlaid over the frames at
the second position during presentation of the video on the
second display.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Patterson
Lopez
Junuzovic
Masuko
US 2012/0221972 Al Aug. 30, 2012
US 2013/0080916 Al Mar. 28, 2013
US 2014/0063174 Al Mar. 6, 2014
US 2015/0149883 Al May 28, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 9, 11-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lopez and Junuzovic. Final Act. 10-18.
Claims 7, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lopez, Junuzovic, and Masuko. Final Act. 18-21.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lopez, Junuzovic, Masuko, and Patterson. Final Act. 21-
23.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Junuzovic teaches or
suggests "wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different
than the first position in the frames of the video," as recited in independent
claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Junuzovic teaches or
suggests "resiz[ing] the first annotation ... to make the first annotation
readable by the user within the second display and selectable by the user
within the touch screen," as recited in independent claim 20?
3
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 can be broadly summarized as a process by which
annotations in a video file are modified for display on a smaller display
device by repositioning the annotation within the video frame to ensure that
it is selectable and/or readable by a user. Claim 1 recites the limitation
"wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different than the
first position the frames of the video." In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner
finds that Lopez teaches digital video designed for presentation on a specific
display that can be annotated such that the location of the annotations are
specified in the annotation data. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner
acknowledges that Lopez does not teach the limitations relating to the use of
a second display, and turns to Junuzovic, and in particular, Figure 2 depicted
below, to address these deficiencies. Final Act. 11-13.
Figure 2 of Junuzovic showing annotation (23 8)
displayed as annotation (240) within inset (236).
More specifically, the Examiner finds a picture-in-picture display, as
depicted in Figure 2 of Junuzovic, is a "second display [ ] smaller than the
first display" within the meaning of Appellants' claims, and that the
4
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
positioning of annotation (238/240) in the picture-in-picture display (236) is
different because "the absolute position is modified to fit into the inset sector
236." Final Act. 13.
Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because Junuzovic does not
teach that the annotation (240) displayed within the inset (23 6) is positioned
any differently than the annotation (238) that is displayed within larger local
display screen (214). App. Br. 9. Appellants argue Junuzovic teaches that
"as the inset sector is resized, the annotation is repositioned and resized to
keep it at the same position within the frames of the video." Id. We agree
with Appellants.
The annotation (240) in Junuzovic shown in the inset (236) is not in a
different position than the annotation (238) shown in the larger display
(214). Rather, as Junuzovic explains, the inset (236) is simply a uniformly
scaled-down version of the larger display (214). Junuzovic ,r 33 ("[T]he
location and size of the digital annotation 23 8 that is made by the local user
is mapped from the local display screen to the inset sector 23 6 on the remote
display screen."). Thus, the intent of Junuzovic's shared display system is to
reproduce the annotation identically on the smaller inset display, and not to
place the annotation in a different location within the display. As such, we
are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding Junuzovic teaches
"wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different than the
first position the frames of the video," and do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims
2---6, 9, 11-16, and 19, which each recite the same limitation.
5
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
Second Issue
Appellants argue separately for patentability of independent claim 20,
which also is rejected as obvious over Lopez in Junuzovic. Claim 20 is
similar to claim 1 in that it generally recites modifying an annotation for
display on a smaller display to ensure that it is readable on the smaller
display where it otherwise would not be without modification. It differs,
however, in that it recites that the second display includes a touch screen and
the modification of the annotation "resize[ s] the first annotation ... to make
the first annotation readable by the user within the second display and
selectable by the user within the touch screen." App. Br. 25-26 (Claims
Appendix).
In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds "it is a device comprising
similar limitations as the method in claim 2 and is therefore rejected for
similar reasons." Final Act. 18. The Examiner's reasoning in connection
with respect to claim 2 is similar to the reasoning provided for rejecting
claim 1, namely that in Junuzovic' s Figure 2 "annotation 240 is a resized
version of annotation 238, such that said annotation 238 can be readable
within the inset sector 236." Final Act. 14. In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner does not explain how Junuzovic teaches that the annotation is
modified to be made "selectable by the user within the touch screen."
However, in the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds Lopez teaches the
recited "selectable by the user" because it describes the use of annotation
selection data. Ans. 20 ( citing Lopez ,r 55).
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred in concluding claim 20 is
obvious over Lopez and Junuzovic. Appellants argue that there is no
teaching in Junuzovic that any annotation is "resized ... to make the ...
6
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
annotation readable ... and selectable." App. Br. 15-16. Appellants argue
Junuzovic makes no reference to readability of any annotation, nor is there
any indication in Junuzovic that the change in size of the annotation that
takes place causes the annotation to be selectable or readable where it
otherwise would not be. App. Br. 16. In the Reply Brief, Appellants
address the Examiner's additional reliance on Lopez, arguing that "Lopez
teaches mapping a selection zone in all displays to a same position in every
other display to maintain the selections zone." Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner relies on
Lopez's description of annotation selection data for teaching the recited
"make the ... annotation ... selectable." Ans. 20. However, annotation
selection data as described in Lopez does not relate to selecting the
annotation via a user interface on a touch display. Rather, the "annotation
selection data" in Lopez is described as data which "specifies the times in
screen locations at which certain scene elements, each having an element
identifier 116, are displayed." Lopez ,r 55. Although the cited portion of
Lopez includes the word "selection," in context, it is clear that the
"selection" described is not the type of selecting that is recited in
Appellants' claims. Accordingly, we are persuaded Lopez does not teach or
suggest the modifying an annotation that would otherwise be not selectable
so that it is selectable, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
7
Appeal2018-004464
Application 13/861,234
REVERSED
8