Ex Parte Shackleton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201713242818 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) 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. 13/242,818 09/23/2011 Lane P. Shackleton 25832.1169 (LI 169) 3750 101198 7590 03/01/2017 Patent Dneket AHminisitratnr EXAMINER Lowenstein Sandler LLP TEKLE, DANIEL T 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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 Ex parte LANE P. SHACKLETON, JAMIESON R. KERNS, MATTHEW S. MARZILLI, and MAURICIO ZULUAGA Appeal 2016-001268 Application 13/242,8181 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to tracking presentation of content. Abstract. 1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 All references to the Appeal Brief herein are to the filing of Apr. 7, 2015. All references to the Answer herein are to the filing of Oct. 20, 2015. Appeal 2016-001268 Application 13/242,818 Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: segmenting, by a client device including a processor, a video into a plurality of segments; monitoring, by the client device, playback of the video for occurrences of playback of respective ends of the segments; and in response to each occurrence of playback of an end of a segment, providing, by the client device, to a server located remotely from the client device, playback data for the video specifying that playback of the end of the segment has occurred and an indication of whether the playback of the video was an advertisement presentation type or a non-advertisement presentation type. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2011/0110646 Al; May 12, 2011). Final Act. 5—7. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Smith’s identification of locations within a multimedia content stream and receipt of event identification data by a server discloses in response to each occurrence of playback of an end of a segment, providing, by the client device, to a server located remotely from the client device, playback data for the video specifying that playback of the end of the segment has occurred. Final Act. 5 (citing Smith || 173, 184); Ans. 5 (further citing Smith 1119). 2 Appeal 2016-001268 Application 13/242,818 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Smith merely discloses that “metadata associated with the hash value sequence data may instruct the DVR to skip the program segment between locations] 704 and 706 or may instruct the DVR to store the program segment between locations] 704 and 706.” App. Br. 16—17. Appellants further argue that the event identifications or tags do “not specify that the event was played.” Reply Br. 3. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Smith uses event identification data to index a multimedia content stream, allowing for a user to browse directly to an event, skip over that event, or for the DVR to display an icon after an event or record or skip over a portion of a program between two locations. See Smith || 119, 173. However, the Examiner does not show that Smith discloses providing playback data specifying that playback of the end of a segment has occurred in response to playback of an event. See, e.g., Ans. 6—7. Smith’s Server 106A does receive event identification data that can be created at multiple DVRs for download. Smith ]f 184. However, the event identification data itself is merely customized program index data rather than a specification that playback of the end of a segment has occurred. Id. 1183; see also Reply Br. 4. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show Smith discloses “in response to each occurrence of playback of an end of a segment, providing, by the client device, to a server located remotely from the client device, playback data for the video specifying that playback of the end of the segment has occurred,” as recited in claim 1. 3 Appeal 2016-001268 Application 13/242,818 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—27, which are similarly rejected and contain similar recitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation