Ex Parte Oliver

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2018

14010763 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/010,763 08/27/2013
25537 7590 09/11/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael R. Oliver
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.
20130523 4485
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2018 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@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL R. OLIVER
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010, 7 63
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, 19-24, and 27-30,
constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to video player censor settings. See
Spec. ,r,r 2, 13. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in
italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a user device, video content;
presenting the video content for viewing at the user device;
providing, at the user device, a video censor toggle that is
configured to switch between a public mode and a censor mode
based on a predetermined input received from a user, wherein in
the censor mode video censoring components are applied to the
video content and substantially obscure the video content in a
manner that a person without previous context of the video
content will be unable to determine activities depicted in the
video content, and in the public mode the video content is
presented without the video censoring components;
receiving a selection of the video censor toggle from the
user at a particular time in the video content during presentation
of the video content in the public mode; and
switching, during presentation of the video content, to
presentation of the video content in the censor mode at the
particular time by adding the video censoring components based
on the selection of the video censor toggle, wherein the video
content is substantially obscured in censor mode and the video
censor toggle is configured to switch to the public mode upon
receipt of a second predetermined input,
wherein the video censoring components are configured
to completely obscure the video content with the exception of an
unobscured scene monitoring area for allowing the user to
determine when a video scene changes, and
wherein the scene monitoring area comprises a comer of
the presented video content.
2
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Klappert et al. (US 2011/0161999 Al; published
June 30, 2011) ("Klappert"), Jarman (US 2006/0277564 Al; published Dec.
7, 2006), and Piotrowski (US 2003/0028875 Al; published Feb. 6, 2003).
Ans. 4.
Claims 2--4 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, and Asikainen et al. (US
2012/0239690 Al; published Sept. 20, 2012) ("Asikainen"). Ans. 8.
Claims 8, 10, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, Asikainen, and
Wagner et al. (US 2007/0092204 Al; published Apr. 26, 2007) ("Wagner").
Ans. 11.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, Asikainen, Wagner, and Block (US
7,200,852, Bl; issued Apr. 3, 2007). Ans. 15.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, Asikainen, Wagner, and Peters (US
2009/0222849 Al; published Sept. 3, 2009). Ans. 16.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, and Peters. Ans. 17.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, Peters, and Hildreth (US 2009/0133051
Al; published May 21, 2009). Ans. 22.
3
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Klappert, Jarman, and Piotrowski teaches or suggests "wherein the video
censoring components are configured to completely obscure the video
content with the exception of an unobscured scene monitoring area for
allowing the user to determine when a video scene changes, and wherein the
scene monitoring area comprises a comer of the presented video content," as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 19 and 21?
Appellant contends Piotrowski teaches a display screen divided into
sections and using values of embedded position codes to determine which of
the sections contain objectionable content to be blocked. App. Br. 13 (citing
Piotrowski ,r,r 34--38). According to Appellant, Piotrowski does not teach
completely obscuring the video content with the exception of an unobscured
scene monitoring area for allowing the user to determine when a video scene
changes. App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant argues Piotrowski teaches
blocking specific locations of objectionable content on a video image, but
not completely obscuring the video content with the exception of an
unobscured scene monitoring area comprising a comer of the video content,
as required in claim 1. Reply Br. 5; see App. Br. 14. Appellant argues
Piotrowski's activation of censoring is performed without user interaction,
and there would be no motivation to adapt the system to incorporate the
claimed scene monitoring area feature. See App. 15-16.
The Examiner determines the claim does not "specify any narrowing
details as to the portion of the content that is to remain unobscured during
the censor mode beyond the mere fact that the unobscured portion comprises
4
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
a comer of the video content." Ans. 24. The Examiner's interpretation of
the claim requires "obscur[ing] the video content except some undefined . ..
portion that includes at least a comer of the video content." Ans. 24. The
Examiner finds Piotrowski "provides several examples for obscuring the
video which may include blocking three quadrants of the screen, essentially
leaving a fourth quadrant (i.e., a comer of the video content) unobscured
viewable to the user." Ans. 25 (citing Piotrowski Fig. 4, ,r,r 34--36); see Ans.
6 (citing Piotrowski Fig. 5, ,r,r 13, 35-38).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant's Specification provides examples of "'censor mode' in which the
user device substantially obscures ( e.g., partially obscures or fully blocks) a
substantial portion of the video content when objectionable content is
detected." Spec. ,r 14. Appellant's Specification describes "the screen may
be totally blocked (e.g., blacked out) for a substantial majority of the screen
with a sufficient but limited portion of the screen unblocked or partially
obscured (e.g., a square in one of the comers)." Spec. ,r 16. However, while
Appellant's Specification gives examples of substantially obscuring a
screen, including leaving a "sufficient but limited portion of the screen
unblocked," it does not provide any limiting definition for the claimed
unobscured scene monitoring area except that it comprises a corner of the
video content. The claimed completely obscuring except for a screen
monitoring area comprising a comer of the video content, in light of
Appellant's Specification, does not preclude teachings including selectively
obscuring all but one quadrant of the display.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6, 25), Piotrowski describes "a TV
display screen has been divided into four sections," with an "example of the
5
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
position code functionality" including at "Position Code" of 02 h, blocked
sections are I and II and at Of h, blocked sections are all of I, II, III, IV.
Piotrowski ,r 35. In other words, Piotrowski teaches obscuring some or all
quadrants of the display screen, including an example of obscuring all but
one of the quadrants of the display screen.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed completely obscuring video content with the exception of a comer
of the video content, encompassing selectively obscuring all but one
quadrant of the display, precludes Piotrowski's selective quadrant censoring
including obscuring all but one quadrant of the display. Appellant has not
explained how Piotrowski' s obscuring three of four quadrants, leaving a
quadrant unobscured, does not teach the claimed obscuring three of four
comers and leaving one comer unobscured.
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 21. For the same reasons, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 6-8, 10,
11, 20, 22-24, and 27-30, not argued separately. See App. Br. 17-19, 21-
22.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Klappert, Jarman, Piotrowski, Asikainen, Wagner, and Block teaches or
suggests "determining a percentage of the video content that includes
objectionable content based on the video content censor metadata," which is
"based on a plurality of reported video censor events received from a
plurality of users" ( claim 8) as recited in dependent claim 9?
6
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
Appellant contends Block teaches determining percentage of
objectionable content by an editor using a single label editor, but not based
on video content censor metadata that is based on a plurality of reported
video censor events received from a plurality of users. App. Br. 20.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant's argument against Block separately from Asikainen 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., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Asikainen
teaches the user identifying and tagging segments of content as
objectionable, and the tags being stored as time-localized metadata, and
Block teaches the system may further determine and present the percentages
of content that have been identified by characteristics (such as objectionable
content). Ans. 25; see Ans. 15 (citing Asikainen Fig. 3, ,r,r 75-85, 112); see
Ans. 16 ( citing Block col. 9, 1. 55---col. 10, 1. 10).
Appellant has not persuasively addressed the Examiner's findings that
the combination of Asikainen's determining video content including
objectionable content based on metadata and Block's determining
percentages of content that have been identified as objectionable teaches the
claimed determining a percentage of the video content that includes
objectionable content based on the video content censor metadata from a
plurality of users.
7
Appeal2018-002593
Application 14/010,763
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of dependent claim 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-11, 19-24, and 27-
3 0 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8