Ex Parte PendarvisDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201612974537 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/974,537 12/21/2010 Robert S. Pendarvis 007412.01261 3897 71867 7590 01/03/2017 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER TEITELBAUM, MICHAEL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): PTO-71867 @bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT S. PENDARVIS1 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ Final Rejection of claims 3—10, 21, and 22, all of the pending claims in the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates the real party in-interest is Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 1, 2, 11—20, and 23—32 have been cancelled. Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to synchronizing audio and video components of a media program. Spec. 13, Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Representative claim 6, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'. 6. A method comprising: separating, by a terminal, an audiovisual program into an audio component and a video component; outputting, by the terminal, the audio component and the video component; and generating a user interface comprising a user interface video component and a user interface audio component and comprising instructions for prompting a user to variably adjust synchronization between the user interface audio component and the user interface video component, wherein the user interface indicates a plurality of available output paths of the terminal, and is configured to permit the user to select an audio output path and a video output path to be synchronized and to have corresponding delays for a plurality of user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths of the terminal stored for the user. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 4—8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Albean (US 2003/0142232 Al), Mallinson (US 2006/0290810 Al) and Yoshimura et al. (US 2010/0054341 Al). Claims 3,21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Albean, Mallinson, Yoshimura, and Kellock et al. (US 8,006,186 B2) (“Kellock”). Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Albean, Mallinson, Yoshimura, Kellock, and Billmaier (US 6,630,963 Bl). 2 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Answer, and the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law to the extent they are consistent with our below analysis. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. Claims 4—10 The Examiner finds Albean teaches ‘“separating, by a terminal, an audiovisual program into an audio component and a video component; outputting, by the terminal, the audio component and the video component,”’ as recited in claim 6, based on Albean’s disclosure of separate audio and video outputs in Figure 1, and left and right audio components being outputted from audio processing section 70 and a video output from video processing section 50. See Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Albean Fig. 1). The Examiner identifies Albean’s audio/video system 100 of Figure 1 as corresponding to the claimed “terminal.” See Ans. 12, 14, 15; see also App. Br. 6 (“The Office cites the Albean system 100 (Fig. 1) to show the claimed terminal.”). 3 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 Figure 1 of Albean is reproduced below: 20 1 \ TONER AIM - VIDEO- 3S IF 50'f rV j VIDEO PROCESSING m /■ • VIDEO SO AJX - VIDEO- 4 —H K Al- 7,0 ^-- audio \ PROCESSING X Dl AUDIO SCLK ■SCO DELAY SELECT T | DELAY "H AUDIO ' 5 U 80 Figure 1 depicts audio/visual system 100 comprising RF signal input terminal 10, tuner 20, intermediate frequency (IF) processing circuitry, multiplexer 40, video processing circuitry 50, video signal output (not numbered), audio signal multiplexer 60, audio processing circuitry 70, audio delay circuitry 80, and left and right audio output signals (not numbered). See Albean ]f]f 17—26. The Examiner further finds that Albean teaches “generating a user interface comprising a user interface video component and a user interface audio component and comprising instructions for prompting a user to variably adjust synchronization between the . . . audio and . . .video component,” as recited in claim 6, based on Albean’s disclosure of user input that can be used to select the desired delay that is performed in response to a screen menu. See Final Act. 4 (citing Albean 132). The Examiner also finds that Albean teaches “the user interface indicates a plurality of available output paths . . . and is configured to permit the user to select an audio path . . . and to have corresponding delays for a 4 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 plurality of user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths . . . stored for the user,” as recited in claim 6, based on Albean’s teaching of a look-up table that can be used to select a delay from different sources. See id. at 5 (citing Albean 133). The Examiner contends that a different source has both a different audio and video output path as compared to other sources. See id. The Examiner explains that, for example, an output from a source A must be outputted by a source A, and the output path is defined by the output from source A. See id. The Examiner further explains that if another output, source B is used to output video and audio, the output path for source B is different from the output path of a signal outputted from source A. See id. Based on this example, the Examiner interprets that output paths originating from different sources have different output paths. See id. The Examiner explains that because Albean teaches that a user can select different sources from a look-up table, the user-selected sources of Albean correspond to the user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths. See id.', see also Ans. 13 (“sources have different audio and video output paths from one another.”), 14 (“it is implicit that the audio and video [output paths] of the selected source correspond to each other and therefore is equivalent to ‘'corresponding delays for a plurality of user- selected combinations of audio and video output paths.'''’'’). The Examiner acknowledges that Albean does not teach “a video output path to be synchronized” in the context of “the user interface ... is configured to permit the user to select an audio output path and a video output path to be synchronized,'” as recited in claim 6. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Mallinson’s audio and video delay path generators for teaching the aforementioned limitation. See id. (citing Mallinson | 6). 5 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 The Examiner also acknowledges that the combination of Albean and Mallinson does not teach explicitly “output paths of the terminal” in the context of “the user interface ... is configured ... to have corresponding delays for a plurality of user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths of the terminal stored for the user,” as recited in claim 6. See Final Act. 6. In a first alternative, the Examiner asserts that “of the terminal” “is a trivial limitation.” See id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner explains that “it has been demonstrated in the art to synchronize various different audio and video streams that travel different paths, where the paths include being input and output by various devices.” Id. The Examiner further asserts that “the specific claim limitation of having the output from a terminal is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill and represents nothing more than combining known elements using familiar methods which do not produce any unpredictable results.” Id. In a second alternative, the Examiner asserts that “it has been demonstrated in the art to synchronize audio and video data based on output to different devices.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that “Yoshimura teaches in paragraph [0013] that the audio and video decoders have a plurality of data output paths and sets a delay time for each of the output paths and synchronizes the decoded video and audio data.” Id. (citing Yoshimura 113). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Albean and Mallinson in view of Yoshimura’s teachings to synchronize based on the output path because when signals can be output by a variety of output paths, each of the paths may have a different amount of signal delay. See id. (citing Yoshimura 1 5). 6 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 Appellant contends that Albean teaches a lookup table that may be used to set the delay based on the selected audio/video input source. App. Br. 6 (citing Albean 133). Appellant argues that the claim clearly recites “output paths of the terminal,” and that these claims elements cannot be ignored. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends the look up table of Albean’s system 100 does not store corresponding delays for a plurality of user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths of the terminal, as recited in claim 6. See App. Br. 6—7; see also id. at 8 (“The Albean lookup table also does not have values for ‘each audio and video path combination’”). Appellant further argues that “internal paths would not show ‘output paths of the terminal.’” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are premised on construing the “output paths of the terminal” as corresponding to the portions of the output paths after exiting physically from the terminal and precluding any internal and intermediary portions of the output paths of the terminal. The claim language is not so limiting. We broadly yet reasonably construe “output paths of the terminal” to include both internal intermediary portions of the output paths of the terminal and the portions of the output paths after exiting physically from the terminal. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Albean’s teachings of a lookup table to set the delay based on the selected audio/video input source, and explanation that video and audio output paths are defined for each input source, teaches or suggests corresponding delays for a plurality of user- selected combinations of audio and video output paths of the terminal stored for the user. We note that Albean teaches, as shown in Figure 1 reproduced above, that tuner 20 receives the RF input signal from input terminal 10 and 7 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 performs signal tuning to generate an analog output signal having audio and video components. See Albean 119. IF processing circuitry 30 receives the analog output signal from tuner 20 and generates video signal component in a specific frequency band, and generates audio signal components in another specific frequency band. See id. 120. Multiplexer 40 receives the video signal components from IF processing circuity 30, and is adapted to receive one or more auxiliary video inputs from one or more external sources. See id. 121. Multiplexer 60 receives the audio signal components from IF processing circuitry 30, and is adapted to receive one or more auxiliary audio inputs corresponding to the auxiliary video inputs provided to multiplexer 40. See id. 124. Video processing circuitry receives analog video signal output from multiplexer 40, performs digital video processing, coverts the video bitstream back to analog format and outputs the analog video signal for further processing. See id. 122. Audio processing circuitry 70 receives the analog audio signal output from multiplexer 60, performs digital audio processing. See id. 125. Audio delay circuitry 80 applies a predetermined delay to the audio bitstream to time align the audio bitstream relative to the corresponding video bitstream processed by video processing circuitry 50. See id. The delayed audio output bitstream is converted to an analog format and output as left (L) and right (R) channel audio output signals for further processing. See id. 126. Based on the aforementioned teachings of Albean, when RF signal input terminal 10 is the input source, the video output path includes RF signal input terminal 10, tuner 20, IF 30, multiplexer 40, video processor 50, and video output signal, and the audio output path includes RF signal input terminal 10, tuner 20, IF 30, multiplexer 60, audio processor 70, and left and 8 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 right audio output signals. See Albean Fig. 1. Likewise, when an external source (e.g., source A, source B, set-top box, DVD, PVR) is the input source, the video output path includes the external source, multiplexer 40, video processor 50, and video output signal, and the corresponding audio output path for the external source includes the external source, multiplexer 60, audio processor 70, and left and right audio output signals. Thus, Albean’s teachings of a lookup table to set the delay based on the selected audio/video input source, teaches or suggests corresponding delays for a plurality of user-selected combinations of audio and video output paths of the terminal (i.e., audio output path and video output paths pairs corresponding to the selected input source) stored for the user. Likewise, Albean’s teachings of a lookup table to set the delay based on the selected audio/video input source also teaches or suggests a “delay value for each of a plurality or audio and video output paths in the terminal, such that the separate delay values are stored for each audio and video output path combination,” as recited in dependent claim 8. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that even if Yoshimura’s teaching of having a different delay time for each of the multiple audio outputs “were added to Albean, the result would mean that the Albean sources could have multiple audio outputs, and that the Albean lookup table would have additional time delay values for each input source, to account for the different audio outputs that the sources may have.” App. Br. 7. Appellant’s argument is again premised on construing the “output paths of the terminal” as corresponding to the portions of the output paths after exiting physically from the terminal and precluding any internal and intermediary portions of the output paths of the terminal. 9 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 For these reasons Appellant does not persuade us of error in the rejection of independent claim 6, dependent claim 8, and dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10, not separately argued. Claims 3, 21, and 22 Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 3 is erroneous because the prior art does not teach or suggest the “user interface comprises a simulated moving video object and an audio sound corresponding to the simulated moving video object striking another object,” as recited in claim 3, which depends from claim 6, and recited similarly in independent claim 21. See App. Br. 9-12. Appellant also argues the rejection of claim 3, 21, and 22 is erroneous because there is no explicit rationale for why one of ordinary skill would want to modify the teachings of Albean to use this feature. See id. First, Appellant contends that Kellock’s teachings of aligning video elements in music videos with sound features in music, and giving an example of a falling object hitting the ground, does not describe a simulated moving video object and fails to teach the disputed limitation of claim 3. See id. at 10 (citing Kellock 30:1—35), 11—12. We are not persuaded that Kellock’s teaching of “aligning] video elements so that the timing of significant features, such as the moment a falling object hits the ground is synchronized with the timing of notable features of the music,” does not teach or suggest a simulated moving video object, and user interface comprising a simulated moving video object and an audio sound corresponding to the simulated moving video object striking another object. Kellock 30:2—5. Appellant does not meaningfully and persuasively explain why Kellock’s falling object hitting the ground video elements do not teach or suggest a simulated moving video object, and why 10 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 Kellock’s notable features of music does not teach or suggest an audio sound corresponding to the simulated moving video object striking another object. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Examiner, Kellock teaches that input objects can be animated graphics. See Ans. 18 (citing Kellock Abstract) Second, Appellant argues that the Office does not explain why Albean’s teachings of allowing a user to selectively increment or decrement a delay during program viewing and an input source based delay selection is insufficient or what would lead one with ordinary skill in the art to want to modify Albean’s system to user a simulated video object instead. See App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that Kellock’s cited teaching “that users often need to spend hours to produce a simple production . . . does not explain why the approaches already in Albean are insufficient for easing this time requirement, or why a simulated moving object would be faster than the methods already shown in Albean.” Id. at 10—11 (citing Final Act. 10). Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error because we are unaware of, and Appellant does not direct us to persuasive authority to support, any requirement to identify an insufficiency in the invention taught by the primary reference to support a determination of obviousness. The Examiner provides a sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness—one with ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Albean, Mallinson, and Yoshimura, to include the teachings of Kellock because Kellock’s teachings of synchronizing images to an audio track offer time savings over known tools. See Final Act. 10. 11 Appeal 2015-007488 Application 12/974,537 For these reasons, in addition to the reasons explained above addressing claims 4—8 and 10, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the rejection of claims 3,21, and 22. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 3—10, 21, and 22. 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation