Ex Parte Pendarvis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12974537 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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