Ex Parte Petrovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13272061 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/272,061 10/12/2011 Rade Petrovic
97075 7590 09/02/2016
Perkins Coie LLP - SDO General
PO Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
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.
077058-8025.US04 1770
EXAMINER
KARW AN, SIHAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RADE PETROVIC, BABAK TEHRANCHI, KANAAN JEMILI,
JOSEPH M. WINOGRAD, and DEAN ANGELIC0 1
Appeal2015-003912
Application 13/272,061
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-13 and 15-23. Claim 14 has been canceled. App. Br. 12. We
have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Verance Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003912
Application 13/272,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to embedding watermarks in
multimedia content. Spec. i-f 11. According to the Specification, by
employing content identification technology (i.e., embedding watermarks),
reliable, accurate, and precise monitoring data may be obtained. Spec. i-f 2.
Such monitoring data may be used for "providing proof-of-performance for
paid advertisements, determining compliance with syndication licenses,
identifying uses of copyrighted sound recordings within other programming,
... or ... identifying unauthorized transmissions of copyrighted works."
Spec. i-f 3. Further, according to the Specification, "[t]he challenging task of
a real-time encoder is to embed the audio watermark while maintaining
synchronization between the audio and video portions of the input signal."
Spec. ,-r 72.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for embedding of watermarks compnsmg
identification information into a multimedia content, comprising:
separating at least one audio component from other components
of the multimedia content that is being received in real-time;
embedding the separated audio component(s) imperceptibly and
repeatedly with the watermarks comprising the identification
information; and
combining the other components of the multimedia content with
the embedded audio component(s), while using a video delay unit
configured to store a video component in a buffer as the separated
audio component(s) are being embedded so as to accommodate delays
caused at least in-part by loading, transfer or embedding of the audio
component data, so that synchronization between segments of the other
2
Appeal2015-003912
Application 13/272,061
components of the multimedia content and corresponding segments of
the embedded audio component( s) is preserved.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-13 and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by McKinley et al. (US 2002/0120849 Al; Aug. 29, 2002)
("McKinley"). Final Act. 3-11.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding McKinley discloses "a video delay
unit configured to store a video component in a buffer as the separated audio
component(s) are being embedded so as to accommodate delays caused at
least in-part by loading, transfer or embedding of the audio component
data," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS3
Appellants contend the hard disk drive of McKinley, as relied upon by
the Examiner, fails to disclose the claimed "video delay unit." App. Br. 6-7.
Instead, Appellants assert, McKinley discloses the hard disk drive
"provide[ s] nonvolatile storage of data, data structures, computer-executable
instructions ... for the computer." App. Br. 6 (quoting McKinley i-f 164).
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 8, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed February 3, 2015
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on December 4, 2014
("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on May 8, 2014,
from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal2015-003912
Application 13/272,061
Appellants argue there is no teaching in McKinley that the hard disk drive is
used as a video delay unit as claimed. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that the hard disk drive of Figure 7 of
McKinley was relied upon to disclose a "video delay unit" and paragraphs
10 and 11 were relied upon to disclose "stor[ing] a video component in a
buffer as the separated audio component( s) are being embedded so as to
accommodate delays caused at least in-part by loading, transfer or
embedding of the audio component data." Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner further explains that memory, such as the hard disk drive of
McKinley, "be used to segment a media signal for parallel watermarking
operations, and distribute the segments to parallel processors," as disclosed
in McKinley. Ans. 15.
We find Appellants' argument persuasive of Examiner error.
Although memory, such as that provided by a hard disk drive, may be used
during the digital watermarking process disclosed by McKinley, the
Examiner has not demonstrated with sufficient evidence or explanation the
hard disk drive is used as a buffer or video delay unit while a watermark is
embedded in the audio components of a multimedia source signal.
Additionally, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's suggested use of
the hard disk drive, without evidence, is speculative and does not
demonstrate a disclosure (either expressly or inherently) of the claimed
video delay unit. See Reply Br. 11.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 12, 22, and 23, which recite similar
4
Appeal2015-003912
Application 13/272,061
limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-11, 13, and 15-21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and 14--23.
REVERSED
5