Ex Parte Riedl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

11953179 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111953,179 12/10/2007
98417 7590 09/28/2016
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Riedl
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.
TWC 07-1211033-04 1702
EXAMINER
MARANDI, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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
Exparte STEVEN RIEDL, JOHN CALLAHAN, BRYAN SANTANGELO,
and CRAIG MAHONCHAK
Appeal2015-007304
Application No. 11/953, 179
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and KAMRAN JIV ANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9 and 11-27. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' invention is a method of providing programming content
from a video server to a client. The method includes the steps of sending the
client a playlist describing an interrelationship between at least one program
segment and at least one related segment; sending, from the video server to
the client, video content comprising the at least one program segment and
1 Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Appeal2015-007304
Application No. 11/953, 179
the at least one related segment; and modifying the playlist via
communication to the client. The steps of sending the playlist, sending the
content, and modifying the playlist are accomplished within a single video-
on-demand session per user. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of providing programming content from
a video server to a client coupled to said video server by a video
content network, said method comprising the steps of:
sending, to said client, a playlist describing an
interrelationship between at least one program segment and at
least one related segment;
sending, from said video server to said client over said
video content network, video content comprising said at least
one program segment and said at least one related segment; and
modifying said playlist via communication to said client;
wherein said steps of sending said playlist, sending said
content, and modifying said
playlist are all accomplished within a single video-on-
demand session per user; and
\'I/herein said single video=on=demand session comprises
a viewer at said client navigating from at least a first program to
at least a second program.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Moynihan
Brandyberry et al.
Schiller et al.
Kosiba et al.
US 2002/0056119 Al
US 2006/0130120 Al
US 2007 /0055983 Al
US 2008/0005348 Al
May 9, 2002
June 15, 2006
Mar. 8, 2007
Jan.3,2008
Jack Brown, Enhanced or Interactive TV ETV SDP-3PF Opportunity:
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (2007)
2
Appeal2015-007304
Application No. 11/953, 179
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13, 19,2 and 21-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schiller and Kosiba.
Claims 4 and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiller, Kosiba, and Brandyberry.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiller, Kosiba, and Moynihan.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiller, Kosiba, Brandyberry, and Brown.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Dec. 30, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July
31, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 2, 2015) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Schiller and Kosiba teach or suggest
modifying the playlist via communication to the client?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13, 19, AND 21-27
Independent claims 1 and 25 recite, in pertinent part, "modifying said
playlist via communication to said client." Independent claim 22 recites, in
2 The Examiner inadvertently omits claim 19 from the statement of rejection,
but specifically discusses the limitations of claim 19 in the detailed
explanation of the rejection. See Ans. 7.
3
Appeal2015-007304
Application No. 11/953, 179
pertinent part, "wherein said module is configured to facilitate modification
of said play list." Appellants support these limitations in the Specification as
follows: "At block 310, client 140 and server 132 cooperate to modify the
playlist, via communication from the video server 132 to the client 140 over
the video content network 13 8." Spec. 19. "The modification of the play list
can include one or more of appending content to the playlist, pre-pending
content to the playlist, inserting content into the playlist, removing content
from the playlist, re-indexing content in the playlist, and so on." Id.
The Examiner finds that Schiller teaches the claimed playlist
modifying. Ans. 3, citing Schiller i-f 44. The cited paragraph of Schiller
discloses that "[t]he ad selector 105 may examine one or more ad schedules
118 and/ or other information sources, and select ads based upon information
therein .... The ad selector 105 provides an indication 411 that causes a
playlist D 404 to be generated for the three ads A, B, and C." Schiller i-f 44.
As noted, Schiller teaches "generating" a playlist, but contains no disclosure
regarding "modifying" a playlist in any way resembling the exemplary
modifications mentioned in Appellants' Specification. Schiller is silent
concerning, for example, appending content into a playlist, inserting content
into a playlist, removing content from a playlist, or re-indexing content in a
playlist. Schiller is also silent concerning the requirement that modification
of the play list occur "via communication to said client."
In response to Appellants' repeated argument that Schiller teaches
only generating a playlist, not modifying a playlist as is claimed, the
Examiner merely repeats the statement that Schiller teaches the claimed
limitation at paragraph 44. Ans. 21. We disagree with the Examiner's
finding, and we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
4
Appeal2015-007304
Application No. 11/953, 179
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 22, and 25. We do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 22, and 25,
nor that of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27.
CLAIM 4, 11, 14--18, AND 20
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1. The
Examiner has not identified disclosure in Brandyberry, Moynihan, or Brown
that cures the deficiencies of Schiller and Kosiba identified supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 4,
11, 14--18, and 20, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
rejection of claim 1, supra.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Schiller and Kosiba does not teach or suggest
modifying the playlist via communication to the client.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9 and 11-27 is reversed.
REVERSED
5