Ex Parte Patil

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

11830171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
11/830, 171
149109 7590
EGL/Excalibur
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
07/30/2007 Bhushan Arun Patil
03/26/2019
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.
12729-283 Y02200US01 2407
EXAMINER
BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BHUSHAN ARUN PATIL
Appeal 2018-002827
Application 11/830, 171 1
Technology Center 3600
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17-25, which are all of the claims pending
in the Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is EXCALIBUR IP, LLC.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002827
Application 11/830, 171
Technology
The application relates to editing a video to include an advertisement
in the video. Spec. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at
issue emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a
graphical interface for generating an interactive video to include
a selected advertisement, the method comprising:
identifying, by at least one processor, an identified video;
controlling, by the at least one processor, a graphical
interface configured to receive an editor selection to place an
advertisement in the identified video via a manual placement
selection, wherein the graphical interface includes an automatic
placement selection and the manual placement selection;
receiving, from a server storing advertisement data and
coupled to a common network, a set of advertisements that are
related to the identified video;
displaying on the graphical interface, in response to the
editor selection, the set of advertisements along with a plurality
of factors including at least one of popularity, profitability, cost
per click, cost per thousand impressions, advertisement
expense, conversion rate, or relevance for each advertisement
from the set of advertisements displayed on the graphical
interface;
receiving, via the graphical interface, a selection of a
selected factor from the plurality of factors displayed on the
graphical interface;
retrieving, from an advertiser database, information
related to the selected factor and displaying the information
related to the selected factor on the graphical interface;
2
Appeal2018-002827
Application 11/830, 171
selecting, by the at least one processor, a selected
advertisement from the set of advertisements based on the
selected factor;
editing, by the at least one processor, a selected number
of video frames from the identified video to include the selected
advertisement and to include a selectable portion configured to
display additional information corresponding to the selected
advertisement within an interactive display window when the
selectable portion is selected during playback of the selected
number of video frames;
generating, by the at least one processor, an interactive
video comprising a plurality of non-interactive video frames
from the identified video and the selected number of video
frames;
controlling, by the at least one processor, playback of the
interactive video in a video display window;
receiving a selection input corresponding to the
selectable portion included in the selected number of video
frames during playback of the selected number of video frames;
and
controlling, by the at least one processor, the additional
information in the interactive display window to concurrently
display with the interactive video in the video display window
on a same web page, wherein the interactive display window is
displayed outside the video display window on the same web
page.
3
Appeal2018-002827
Application 11/830, 171
References and Rejection2,3
Claims 1--4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gilley et al. (US 2008/0187279 Al;
published Aug. 7, 2008) ("Gilley") and Watanabe et al. (US 2006/0050785
Al; published Mar. 9, 2006) ("Watanabe"). Final Act. 11-58.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
Appellant argues error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 because
Watanabe does not disclose "the concurrent display of the video stream 501
and the additional information 511 in separate display windows." Reply
Br. 4 (referring to Watanabe, Fig. 8). Appellant contends the error flows
from the Examiner's "unfounded assumption that [Watanabe's] overlay of
descriptive information must be part of a separate window from the video
playback to avoid negatively affecting the video playback." Id. at 3 (citing
Ans. 7); see also App Br. 16 ("Watanabe fails to disclose two distinct
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed September
25, 2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their
respective details: the Final Rejection mailed April 27, 2017 ("Final Act."),
the Examiner's Answer mailed December 22, 2017 ("Ans."), and
Appellant's Reply Brief filed January 25, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 have been withdrawn. Final
Act. 2; Ans. 3--4.
4
Appeal2018-002827
Application 11/830, 171
windows, e.g., 'the interactive display window' and 'the video display
window,' as recited in claim 1.").
We see no error. Watanabe discloses "[t]he high resolution still image
can be displayed either by itself ( as repetitive displays of the same still
image, for example) on the television screen, or can be overlaid such that the
still image appears as an overlay over moving video." Watanabe ,r 57. This
at least suggests that the high resolution still image, whether displayed by
itself or as an overlay over the moving video, is in a distinct window with
respect to the moving video.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
the remaining claims argued therewith.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1--4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5