Ex Parte Sidi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201714267124 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 14/267,124 05/01/2014 AriffSidi 0260259C2 4646 63649 7590 12/04/2017 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP 26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 EXAMINER ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2497 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): docketing @ farj ami. com farj amidocketing @ yahoo, com ITarj ami @ farj ami. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARIFF SIDI, SKARPI HEDINSSON, DAVID WATSON, and DIONYSIUS MAVROMATIS Appeal 2017-003186 Application 14/267,124 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 68—70, 72—80, and 82—87. Br. 1. Claims 1—67, 71, and 81 are cancelled. Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Disney Enterprises, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 10, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 20, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 17, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed June 27, 2016, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed May 1, 2014, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2017-003186 Application 14/267,124 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to distribution of media content. See Abstract. Claims 68 and 78 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 68, which is reproduced below: Claim 68. A method for use by a media device having a processor, a display and a memory storing a web browser, the method comprising: launching, by the processor, the web browser from the memory; contacting an application server using the web browser; launching a rendering application using the web browser, in response to the contacting of the application server; receiving a timeline profile including metadata, wherein the metadata indicate a temporal ordering of protected segments of a selected media content and gating media segments; requesting, using the metadata, the gating media segments from an advertisement server; receiving the gating media segments from the advertisement server in response to the requesting; rendering, on the display, one or more of the gating media segments; contacting a content server for the protected segments; rendering, on the display, one or more of the protected segments after the rendering of the one or more of the gating media segments; and presenting, on the display, a timeline while rendering the one or more of the protected segments and the one or more of the gating media segments on the display, wherein the timeline is partitioned according to the temporal ordering of the protected segments of the selected media content and the gating media segments, and wherein the timeline visually distinguishes between the gating media segments and the 2 Appeal 2017-003186 Application 14/267,124 protected segments and includes a visual indicator indicating a temporal progression of one of the one or more of the protected segments and the one or more of the gating media segments being rendered on the display. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Holtz, etal., US 6,760,916 B2 July 6, 2004 Vogler, et ah, US 2005/0033700 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 Scott III, et al., US 2005/0210498 A1 Sept. 22, 2005 Claims 68—70, 72—80 and 82—87 stand rejected under 35.U.S.C. § 103(e)3 as being unpatentable over Scott, Vogler, and Holtz. Final Act. 6— 17. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 68—70, 72—80, and 82—87 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7—11. Claims 68-70,72-80 and 82-87: Obviousness over Scott, Vogler, and Holtz Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 68. App. Br. 11. Thus, we decide this appeal on the basis of representative Claim 68, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 3 The Final Rejection recites “35.U.S.C, 103(e).” We assume “35 U.S.C. § 103(a)” was intended. Final Act. 6. With this assumption, we hold the actual recitation to be harmless error. 3 Appeal 2017-003186 Application 14/267,124 Timeline. The Examiner finds the Scott-Vogler combination fails to disclose “presenting, on the display, a timeline while rendering the one or more of the protected segments and the one or more of the gating media segments on the display,” as recited in independent Claim 68. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner cites Holtz for this teaching. Id., at 11; see Id. 2—5. Specifically, the Examiner finds GUI 900 teaches the claimed timeline feature. Id., at 11 (citing Holtz, col. 29,11. 10-17, “referring back to Fig. 9, GUI 900”). Appellants contend Holtz nowhere discloses or suggests displaying, on a display that simultaneously displays the customized content, either GUI 900 or a timeline. App. Br. 9 (citing Holtz, col. 31, et seq.). The Examiner finds Holtz displays a timeline for network programs and advertisements, a news program is then compiled and downloaded to a user’s device. Ans. 4 (citing Holtz, col. 5,11. 5—7). The Examiner further finds GUI 900 includes a timeline 402 and a descriptive bar 902. Id. The Examiner finds that each region within Bar 902 may be labeled to identify specific segments of media production. Id. Appellants contend the Examiner’s answer conflates two separate displays disclosed by Holtz. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue the first citation to Holtz (col. 5,11. 5—7) refers to a user display that renders media segments for viewing by the user. Id. Appellants argue the second citation to Holtz (col. 29,11. 10-17) refers to the editor’s display (Fig. 9) that the editor uses to place segments in a temporal order. Id. Appellants argue the user’s display does not show a timeline. Id. (citing Holtz, Figs. 11—13). With respect to the first citation to Holtz, the Examiner does not explain where a timeline may be found in any of Figures 11—13 (the user’s 4 Appeal 2017-003186 Application 14/267,124 display). We do not find a timeline therein. Holtz discloses: “[t]he news program is then compiled, potentially with advertisements, and downloaded to the user’s display device.” Holtz, col. 5,11. 5—7. This passage, cited by the Examiner, does not relate to a timeline or a display. See Ans. 4. With respect to the second citation to Holtz (the editor’s display), although GUI 900 incorporates a timeline, the Examiner fails to explain where within GUI 900 a video image is displayed. Holtz explicitly shows a video image in the user’s display (Figs. 11—13 which lack a timeline). In contrast to the Examiner’s finding, Holtz discloses GUI 900 is a component of a video editing processor which processes pre-recorded video. Holtz, col. 30,11. 13—16. We find no disclosure in Holtz that GUI 900 displays video images. In view of the foregoing, we find the prior art fails to render obvious “presenting, on the display, a timeline while rendering the one or more of the protected segments and the one or more of the gating media segments on the display,” as claimed. DECISION The rejection of Claims 68—70, 72—80, and 82—87 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation