Ex Parte Limp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2017

13529818 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 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.
13/529,818 06/21/2012 David A. Limp 085101-526751.218NPUS00 7938
136608 7590 06/12/2017
AMAZON
POLSINELLI
1000 LOUISIANA STREET
FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77002
EXAMINER
SCHNURR, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2017 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):
POL-ATI@polsinelli.com
bvo @polsinelli. com
c adocket @ polsinelli. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. LIMP, CHARLES G. TRITSCHLER and
PETER A. LARSEN
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—3, 6, 18, 19, 21, and 28—42, which are all the claims pending in the
application. Claims 4, 5, 7—17, 20, and 22—27 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a request for media content to be presented to a
user;
causing at least a portion of the media content to be
presented on a first electronic device associated with the user;
analyzing the portion of the media content presented on
the first electronic device to attempt to recognize an object
represented in the media content;
identifying supplemental media content relating to the
object;
determining a relevance score that indicates a level of
interest for the supplemental media content;
comparing the relevance score to a minimum relevance
threshold;
determining the media content includes a trigger;
causing at least a portion of the supplemental media
content to be presented on a second electronic device when the
media content includes the trigger and the relevance score at least
meets the minimum relevance threshold ; and
2
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
causing a notification to be presented on the first electronic
device indicating that at least a portion of the supplemental media
content is being presented on the second electronic device.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Lanier, and Yen.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Lanier, Yen, and Matthews, III.
Claims 6, 18, 32, 33, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, and Yen.1
Claims 18, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Campana and Yen.
1 Claims 8, 38, and 39 are incorrectly included in this statement of rejection.
Claims 18, 38, and 39 are also listed in the statement of rejection as being
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campana and
Yen, which is correctly supported by the body of the rejection. Final Act. 6—
7. This statement of rejection should only include claims 6, 32, and 33.
Prior Art
Yen
Zimmerman
Mampaey
Lanier
Incorvia
Campana
Holmdahl
Matthews, III
Kimura
US 5,991,799 Nov. 23, 1999
US 2005/0229233 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
US 2006/0143683 A1 June 29, 2006
US 2011/0181496 A1 July 28, 2011
US 2012/0167146 A1 June 28, 2012
US 2012/0210349 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
US 2012/0324493 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
US 2012/0324495 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
US 8,887,226 B2 Nov. 11,2014
Examiner’s Rejections
3
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Yen, and Lanier.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, Yen, and Lanier.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Yen, and Zimmerman.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, Yen, and Matthews, III.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, Yen, and Incorvia.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Yen, and Incorvia.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, Yen, and Holmdahl.
Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Yen, and Holmdahl.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Yen, and Mampaey.
Claims 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campana, Lanier, yen, and Incorvia.
4
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 6, 18, 19, 21, 28—31, 33—37, and 39—42
Claim 1 recites “determining the media content includes a trigger” and
“causing at least a portion of the supplemental media content to be presented
on a second electronic device when the media content includes the trigger
and the relevance score at least meets the minimum relevance threshold.”
The Examiner finds Campana teaches that “the system is being
triggered to display certain complementary content at specific times.” Ans.
5 (citing Campana Tflf 42, 44, 46, 48, 49). Specifically, the Examiner finds
the claimed “trigger” is taught by “the signal identifying complementary
content to be displayed by the secondary device in synchronization with the
primary content as taught by Campana.” Ans. 5. Appellants contend
Campana does not provide “any mention or fair suggestion of ‘the signal
identifying complementary content.’” Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants that Campana fails to teach a “signal
identifying complementary content to be displayed by the secondary device
in synchronization with the primary content,” as asserted by the Examiner.
Appellants further contend that “Campana is silent with respect to any
‘trigger,’ let alone ‘determining the media content includes a trigger,”’ (App.
Br. 7), and that “neither the specifically cited portions of Campana nor the
broader disclosure of Campana (as a whole) teaches, discloses or fairly
suggests ‘determining the media content includes a trigger’” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with the teachings of Paragraphs 41,
49, and 60 of Campana.
Paragraph 39 of Appellants’ Specification discloses:
During presentation of the media, or at another such appropriate
time, the media presentation can be monitored 606 to attempt to
5
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
determine the presence or occurrence of certain types of
information... During the monitoring, a trigger can be detected
608 that indicates the potential presence of a certain type of
information. This can include, for example a new face entering
a scene, a new clothing item appearing, a new song being played,
and the like. A trigger also can be generated in response to the
detection of a tag, metadata, or other such information associated
with the media content. In response to the trigger, which can
include information about the type of content, an attempt can be
made to locate and/or determine 610 the availability of related
supplemental content... If supplemental content is located that
at least meets these or other such criteria, that supplemental
content can be provided 614 to the appropriate device for
presentation to the user.
The scope of the claimed “determining the media content includes a trigger,”
when read in light of Paragraph 39, encompasses determining the presence
of a tag associated with the media content. The scope of the claimed
“causing at least a portion of the supplemental media content to be presented
on a second electronic device when the media content includes the trigger,”
when read in light of paragraph 39, encompasses presenting supplemental
content that is located in response to the presence of a tag associated with
the media content.
Paragraph 41 of Campana teaches “one can insert tags and/or other
types of markers into the primary content to assist with this approach and/or
provide context extraction techniques (e.g., read closed captioning
information, electronic program information) to determine attributes about
content being accessed.” Paragraph 49 of Campana teaches
“complementary content is provided by extracting closed captioning
information.”
The scope of the claimed “determining the media content includes a
trigger,” when read in light of Paragraph 39 of Appellants’ Specification,
6
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
encompasses determining the presence of a tag associated with the media
content, such as the “tags and/or other types of markers [inserted] into the
primary content,” to extract the closed caption complementary content as
taught by Paragraphs 41 and 49 of Campana.
The scope of the claimed “causing at least a portion of the
supplemental media content to be presented on a second electronic device
when the media content includes the trigger,” when read in light of
Paragraph 39 of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses presenting
supplemental content that is located in response to the presence of a tag
associated with the media content, such as closed captioning information
extracted and displayed on a second device using Campana’s “tags to assist
with... and/or provide context extraction techniques.” Campana H 41, 49.
Furthermore, Paragraph 39 of Appellants’ Specification discloses that
a trigger “can include, for example a new face entering a scene, a new
clothing item appearing, a new song being played, and the like.” The scope
of the claimed “determining the media content includes a trigger,” when
read in light of paragraph 39, encompasses an indication of something new
in the media content, such as a new song being played. The scope of the
claimed “causing at least a portion of the supplemental media content to be
presented on a second electronic device when the media content includes the
trigger,” when read in light of paragraph 39, encompasses presenting
supplemental content that is located in response to the indication of
something new in the media content, such as a new song being played.
Paragraph 60 of Campana discloses:
A user is watching a television and surfing on his laptop. The
user directs their browser to a uniform resource location
(URL)... and is presented with a web page with content relevant
7
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
to the current program on television (similar to the current
channel widget). As the channel is changed on the television, the
secondary screen device (laptop) is updated to reflect the current
channel. The user changes the channel to “HANNAH
MONTANA” on the DISNEY channel. The secondary screen
device is then populated with information for show times at his
local theaters. The laptop screen is (more or less) continuously
updated with information in response to what is currently on the
main screen (i.e., television)...
The scope of the claimed “determining the media content includes a
trigger,” when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses
determining something new in the media content, such as a changed channel
taught by Campana. The scope of the claimed “causing at least a portion of
the supplemental media content to be presented on a second electronic
device when the media content includes the trigger,” encompasses
presenting supplemental content that is located in response to an indication
of something new in the media content, such as when “the channel is
changed on the television, the secondary screen device (laptop) is updated to
reflect the current channel” as taught by Campana.
Appellants further argue Yen does not teach “determining a relevance
score” and “causing at least a portion of the supplemental media content to
be presented on a second electronic device when the media content includes
the trigger and the relevance score at least meets the minimum relevance
threshold.” App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner finds that “Campana
et al. discloses displaying complementary content on a secondary device”
and “Yen et al. discloses a system for presenting supplementary content to a
user during presentation of primary content based on a calculated degree of
interest the user may have for the complementary content surpassing a
threshold value” and that the “combination results in the two-screen system
8
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
of Campana et al. displaying complementary content on the secondary
device only when the supplementary content surpasses a threshold relevance
as taught by Yen et al.” Ans. 5.
Appellants’ argument against Yen separately from Campana does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Campana, Fanier, and Yen. However,
because the Examiner did not rely on Paragraph 41 of Campana, which
teaches insertion of a tag to assist with and/or provide closed captioning
extraction techniques, nor Paragraph 60 of Campana, which teaches
presenting supplemental content in response to determining a channel has
changed, for the rejection of claim 1, we designate this rejection as a new
ground of rejection.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
commensurate independent claims 6 and 18, or dependent claims 3, 18, 19,
21, 28—31, 33—37, and 39-42, which fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 10-13.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 18, 19, 21, 28—31,
33—37, and 39-42 under § 103.
Dependent Claim 2
Appellants argue “claim 2 recites [further] limitations that [] are
clearly distinguishable over Campana, Fanier, and Yen.” App. Br. 10.
9
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
Specifically, claim 2 recites “wherein the object includes at least one of a
sound, an image, a location, an audio segment, text, a tag, or metadata
associated with the media content.” The Examiner finds Lanier teaches the
presence of such an object. Final Act. 4. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument of Examiner error. Furthermore, we find
that Campana teaches a media content object including a tag, as discussed
supra. Campana 141.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Campana, Lanier, and Yen.
Dependent Claim 32
Appellants argue that claim 32 recites “[further] limitations that also
are clearly distinguishable over Campana, Kimura, and Yen.” App. Br. 11.
Specifically, claim 32 recites “determining an identity of the user before
locating the supplemental media content related to the feature of the at least
a portion of the media content, the identity being determined based at least
in part upon login information provided by the user.” The Examiner finds
Campana teaches this limitation. Final Act. 6. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Campana, Kimura, and Yen.
Dependent Claim 38
Appellants argue that claim 38 recites “[further] limitations that also
are clearly distinguishable over Campana and/or Yen.” App. Br. 12.
Specifically, claim 3 8 recites “determine an identity of the user before
10
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
requesting the supplemental media content related to the object, the identity
being determined based at least in part upon login information provided by
the user.” The Examiner finds Campana teaches this limitation. Final Act.
7. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Campana and Yen.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 6, 18, 19, 21, and 28-42 are
affirmed and designated as a new grounds of rejection.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (2011). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
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).
11
Appeal 2016-008260
Application 13/529,818
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50tbl
12