Ex Parte Riggs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12613623 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/613,623 11/06/2009
72058 7590 09/16/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Riggs
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.
58083/380845 (Bll05) 6705
EXAMINER
BARRETT, RYANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN RIGGS and EDWIN VAN RIJKOM
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to generating media player behaviors based on
traits corresponding to media elements (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying, by a computing system providing a media
player, a wrapped media element, the wrapped media element
wrapped by a proxy media element, wherein the wrapped media
element is declared in executable code defining a media
presentation, the executable code being instructions used by the
media player to utilize a selectively-enabled functional
component of the media player, wherein the selectively-enabled
functional component is not natively supported by logic of the
media player;
determining a trait exposed by the proxy media element;
and
generating the selectively-enabled functional component
to provide a media player behavior based on the exposed trait.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Markel
Cramer
Edmonson
Cronstrom
Marcus
US 2002/0089530 Al
US 2002/0104096 Al
US 2006/0053079 Al
US 2007 /0240030 Al
US 2009/0125582 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
2
July 11, 2002
Aug. 1, 2002
Mar. 9, 2006
Oct. 11, 2007
May 14, 2009
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
Claims 1-18 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus (Final Act.
2-19).
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, Marcus, and Cronstrom (id.
at 19-22).
ISSUES
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
22) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-9). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 7, and 13
Issue 1 a: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Cramer
and Edmonson teaches or suggests
[t]he wrapped media element is declared in executable code
defining a media presentation ... to utilize a selectively enabled
functional component of the media player ... determining a trait
exposed by the proxy media element; and generating the
selectively-enabled functional component to provide a media
player behavior based on the exposed trait,
3
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13?
Issue 1 b: Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Cramer,
Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus?
ANALYSIS
Issue la
Appellants contend the combination of Cramer and Edmonson does
not teach or suggest
the wrapped media element is declared in executable code
defining a media presentation ... to utilize a selectively enabled
functional component of the media player ... determining a trait
exposed by the proxy media element; and generating the
selectively-enabled functional component to provide a media
player behavior based on the exposed trait,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13 (App. Br. 13-
16; Reply Br. 1--4). Specifically, Appellants argue Edmonson teaches
"using a wrapper to prevent access to a media file," rather than using the
wrapper to "selectively enable functionality of the media player" (Reply Br.
3--4 (emphasis omitted); App. Br. 14--15).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Cramer teaches media elements including embedded
commands that determine media player functionality (Ans. 3 (citing Cramer
i-fi-15-7, 79, 83, Fig. 1); Final Act. 2-3 (citing Crameri-fi-f 40--42)). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Edmonson teaches a media element
can be wrapped using a wrapper (Final Act. 3 (citing Edmonson i1 86); Ans.
3--4 (citing Edmonson Fig. 12)). The Examiner's combination embeds
Cramer's commands into Edmonson's media wrapper, rather than
4
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
embedding those commands in "the original media element" itself (Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 4--5).
Appellants' arguments attack the references individually when the
Examiner's rejection is based on the combination of references.
Specifically, Appellants' arguments that Edmonson does not selectively
enable media player functionality (Reply Br. 3--4; App. Br. 14--15) do not
address the Examiner's reliance on Cramer to teach selective enablement of
media player functionality (Ans. 3 (citing Cramer i1i15-7, 79, 83, Fig. 1);
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Cramer i1i140-42)). Additionally, Appellants'
arguments that "combining Edmonson with Cramer simply discloses
preventing access while a file is wrapped (as disclosed by Edmonson),
allowing access when the file is unwrapped (as disclosed by Edmonson), and
using the media player of Cramer with the unwrapped media file" (Reply Br.
3 (emphasis omitted)) inappropriately requires the bodily incorporation of
Edmonson's media element access prevention feature. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner's combination incorporates
Cramer's commands enabling media player functionality, into Edmonson's
media element wrapper, and does not incorporate Edmonson's media
element access prevention feature (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4--5).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Cramer and Edmonson teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13.
Issue lb
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Cramer,
Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus (App. Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 6-9).
5
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
Specifically, Appellants argue the combination of Edmonson and Markel
"would both change the principle of operation of the invention disclosed in
Edmonson and render the system disclosed in Edmonson inoperable for its
intended purpose" (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6-8).
We are not persuaded because Appellants' arguments are directed to
features in Edmonson that the Examiner's combination does not include,
namely, media element access prevention (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6-8). See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. As discussed supra, the Examiner only relies
on Edmonson' s teaching that a media element can be wrapped using a
wrapper (Final Act. 3 (citing Edmonson i-f 86); Ans. 3--4 (citing Edmonson
Fig. 12)). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner's combination changes the principle of operation,
or renders inoperable, Edmonson's media element wrapping function; rather,
the combination wraps Cramer's media element in a wrapper (Ans. 4--5;
Final Act. 3).
Similarly, Appellants argue that incorporating the teachings of Markel
would change the principle of operation, or render inoperable, Edmonson
(App. Br. 17-18). Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner improperly
combined Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus because the Examiner
provided "an alleged rationale for combining Cramer with Edmondson, an
alleged rationale for combining Cramer with Markel, and an alleged
rationale for combining Cramer with Marcus" but "failed to provide a
rationale for combining all four of the references" (App. Br. 19-20).
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Cramer and
Edmonson is the result of "impermissible hindsight reconstruction" (Reply
Br. 9).
6
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As discussed above,
we agree with the Examiner that Edmonson teaches wrapping a media
element. (Final Act. 3 (citing Edmonson i-f 86); Ans. 3--4 (citing Edmonson
Fig. 12)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Markel teaches that a
wrapped media element can be provided via executable code (Final Act. 3
(citing Markel i-f 7)). The Examiner finds Marcus teaches multiple different
media elements (Final Act. 3--4 (citing Marcus i-f 61)). Appellants' argument
that Edmonson' s principle of operation would be changed and Edmonson
would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose (App. Br. 18) are
unpersuasive. Appellants' arguments are insufficient to persuade us
Edmonson' s media wrapping function would be changed or rendered
inoperable. The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rationale
underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to combine Cramer and Edmonson - "to alter the final trait
expression without altering the original media element," to combine Cramer,
Edmonson, and Markel - to "enhance the interface with the media
information and related entities," and to combine Cramer, Edmonson,
Markel, and Marcus -to "provide multiple functionalities" (Ans. 6-7).
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us of error in the Examiner's reasoning.
Furthermore, the Examiner's combination of Cramer, Edmonson,
Markel, and Marcus only relies upon Markel to teach that a media wrapper
can be defined using executable code (Final Act. 3 (citing Markel i-f 7);
Appellants' arguments directed to features in Markel the Examiner's
combination does not incorporate, i.e., the particular content and purpose of
Markel's wrapper (see App. Br. 18), does not persuade us that Edmonson's
7
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
principle of operation would be changed or that Edmonson would be
rendered inoperable for its intended purpose.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments, including Appellants' allegation
without elaboration that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight (App.
Br. 19-20), are not persuasive because the Examiner's combination "'simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Here, the
Examiner properly identifies known elements from Cramer (a media player
providing functionality based on a media element), Edmonson (a wrapper
for a media element), Markel (providing a wrapper using executable code),
and Marcus (multiple different media elements), each performing the same
function it had been known to perform (Final Act. 2--4 ). The skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Furthermore, Appellant has
presented no evidence or argument that combining the teachings and
suggestions of Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus (Edmonson' s
wrapper wraps Cramer's media element, Markel' s executable code wrapper
provides the wrapper in executable code, and Marcus' library of different
media elements provides multiple different types of media elements (Ans. 3,
6-7; Final Act. 2--4)) would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the
prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
8
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner's finding and reasoning.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 9, and 15
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Cramer
and Edmonson teaches or suggests "determining a trait exposed by the
wrapped media element and identifying a change to the trait based on a
parameter included in code defining the proxy media element," as recited in
claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 15?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue neither Cramer nor Edmonson teaches or suggests
"determining a trait exposed by the wrapped media element and identifying
a change to the trait based on a parameter included in code defining the
proxy media element," as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 9
and 15 (App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 9-11). Specifically, Appellants argue
Edmonson's wrapper does not include "a parameter that is used to change a
trait of the wrapped media file" (App. Br. 22). Appellants also argue
Cramer's "identif[ied] plug-ins from text strings" are not provided in a
wrapped media element (Reply Br. 10 (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As discussed supra,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Cramer teaches media player
functionality, i.e., traits, which are changed based on parameters (Ans. 8
9
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
(citing Cramer if 7)). Indeed, Cramer teaches changing a media player's
ability to play media formats, e.g., to "Windows Media, Real Player,
QuickTime, etc.," based on text strings (Cramer iii! 5, 7). Furthermore, as
discussed supra, we also agree with the Examiner's finding that Edmonson
teaches wrapped media elements (Final Act. 3 (citing Edmonson if 86); Ans.
3--4 (citing Edmonson Fig. 12)). The Examiner determines the combination
of Cramer and Edmonson teaches wrapping media elements in a wrapper
having parameters that may trigger specific functions of a media player
(Final Act. 5; see Ans. 8).
Appellants' arguments attack the references individually when the
Examiner's rejection is based on the combination of references. More
specifically, Appellants' arguments that Cramer does not teach a media
wrapper (Reply Br. 10) do not address the Examiner's finding that
Edmonson teaches a media wrapper (Final Act. 3 (citing Edmonson if 86);
Ans. 3--4 (citing Edmonson Fig. 12)). Furthermore, Appellants' arguments
that Edmonson does not change media player functionality (Reply Br. 3--4;
App. Br. 14--15) do not address the Examiner's combination which relies on
Cramer to teach changing media player functionality using parameters (Ans.
8 (citing Cramer if 7)), i.e., the Examiner's combination of Cramer and
Edmonson changes media player functionality using parameters defined in a
wrapper wrapping a media element (Final Act. 5; see Ans. 8). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Cramer and Edmonson teaches or suggests "determining a trait exposed by
the wrapped media element and identifying a change to the trait based on a
parameter included in code defining the proxy media element," as recited in
claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 15.
10
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 24
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding Cramer teaches or suggests
"code that intercepts media player commands and replaces the media player
commands with code directed to a trait of the proxy media element," as
recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Cramer does not teach or suggest "code that
intercepts media player commands and replaces the media player commands
with code directed to a trait of the proxy media element," as recited in claim
24 (App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 4--6). Specifically, Appellants argue Cramer
Chart 3 describes base media player functions and further, "the only
'replacement' of 'standard controls' in Cramer involves adding animations
of these standard controls to a graphical interface" (App. Br. 24; Reply Br.
6). Appellants further argue Cramer's "[A]nimation [S]creen appears to lack
any relationship to content being used by the media player" (Reply Br. 6
(emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Cramer teaches "skinning" a Media Player (Final Act. 2
(citing Cramer i-f 5)) with an Animation Screen which "completely replace[s]
the standard controls that come with" Cramer's media player (Ans. 9 (citing
Cramer i-f 273)). Indeed, Cramer's media player has five built-in controls:
"Stop," "Pause," "Play," "Menu," and "Index" buttons (Cramer i-f 60).
Those five built-in control buttons "are all optional if the designer provides
their functionality" via a "skin" using Flash buttons which "replace the
11
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
standard controls" (Cramer iii! 62---63, 273 (emphasis added); see Cramer
iii! 28-30). That is, Cramer's built-in control buttons (commands) are
removed (intercepts media player commands) when a skin includes Flash
buttons to replace the built-in control buttons. Further, contrary to
Appellants' argument that Cramer's skin is unrelated to media content
(Reply Br. 6), Cramer teaches "video or other streamed content may also
contain a command for specifying a particular player 'skin' to be used for a
particular multimedia presentation" (Cramer if 5). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Cramer teaches or suggests "code
that intercepts media player commands and replaces the media player
commands with code directed to a trait of the proxy media element," as
recited in claim 24.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus teaches the
limitations recited in claim 24.
Remaining Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10--12, 14, and 16--23
Dependent claims 2, 4---6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-23 are not separately
argued by Appellants (see App. Br. 16, 19-20, 26) and thus, these claims fall
with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2, 4--6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-18, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cramer,
Edmonson, Markel, and Marcus and dependent claims 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cramer, Edmonson, Markel,
Marcus, and Cronstrom.
12
Appeal2015-003575
Application 12/613,623
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, and
Marcus is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cramer, Edmonson, Markel, Marcus, and
Cronstrom is affirmed.
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
13