Ex Parte SONG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12147052 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/147,052 06/26/2008
66547 7590 06/30/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jae-Yeon SONG
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.
678-3530 (Pl6391) 6248
EXAMINER
LIU,SIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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
Ex parte JAE-YEON SONG, SEO-YOUNG HWANG,
YOUNG-KWON LIM, and KOOK-HEUI LEE
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 69, 72-76, 79-81, 83-85, 87-92, and 94--101. (App. Br. 10.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
composing a scene. (Spec. 1.) Claim 69, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
69. A method for transmitting content, comprising:
generating content including attribute information based on at
least one of a terminal type, a user preference, and a content-
serviced party, and at least one of a plurality of scene elements
and a plurality of scene element sets, for composing a scene by
using at least one of the plurality of scene elements and the
plurality of scene element sets selected by a terminal;
encoding the content; and
transmitting the encoded content,
wherein each of the scene element sets includes the scene
elements, and
wherein the content further includes attribute information about
an event indicating a change in at least one of the terminal type,
the user preference, and the content-serviced party.
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Negishi et al. US 2002/0059571 Al May 16, 2002
W enocur et al. US 2003/0009694 Al Jan. 9,2003
Song et al. US 2007 /0107018 Al May 10, 2007
Iwabuchi US 2007 /0174489 Al July 26, 2007
Eleftheriadis et al. US 2007 /0200923 Al Aug.30,2007
2
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
REJECTIONS
Claims 69, 72, 74, 76, 79, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi and
Iwabuchi. (Ans. 2.)
Claims 73 and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi, Iwabuchi, and Wenocur.
(Final Act. 10.)
Claims 75 and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi, Iwabuchi, and Eleftheriadis.
(Final Act. 11-12.)
Claims 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, and 96 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Negishi. (Ans. 2.)
Claims 88 and 95 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi, Iwabuchi, and Wenocur.
(Final Act. 11.)
Claims 90 and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi and Eleftheriadis. (Final Act.
12.)
Claims 98 and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi and Eleftheriadis. (Final Act.
14.)
Claims 100 and 101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofNegishi and Song. (Final Act. 13.)
3
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
ANALYSIS
Claims 69, 72, 74, 76, 79, and 81
Appellants argue claims 69, 72, 74, 65, 79, and 81 on the basis of
claim 69. (App. Br. 6-8). The issue for claim 69 is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that I wabuchi teaches or suggests the element of "wherein
the content further includes attribute information about an event indicating a
change in at least one of the terminal type, the user preference, and the
content-serviced party." (App. Br. 6.)
The Examiner finds (i) I wabuchi discloses changing a display size,
which is an event indicating a change, and (ii) Iwabuchi's changed display
size is attribute information about an event, indicating a change. (Final Act.
9; Ans. 4.) Citing Matsubara (US 2006/0067561), the Examiner takes
Official Notice that image files inherently include image size information
and therefore, Iwabuchi's transmitted image files include the changed
display size. (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4.)
Appellants argue that I wabuchi merely discloses the transmission of a
changed display size from a terminal to a server and Iwabuchi does not
include the changed display size in its content. (App. Br. 7.) Appellants
further argue that the changed display size is not an event indicating a
change. (Id.) In addition, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in taking
Official Notice because Matsubara does disclose an event indicating a
change or attribute information about an event indicating a change. (App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the argument that
Matsubara does disclose an event indicating a change or attribute
information about an event indicating a change is not directed to the
4
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
Examiner's Official Notice. The Examiner did not take Official Notice that
an event indicating a change or attribute information about an event
indicating a change was known. The Examiner took Official Notice that
image files include image size information, and Appellants have not
persuasively explained why or presented evidence to show that Official
Notice is erroneous. (Final Act. 4--5; App. Br. 6; Ans. 4; Reply Br. 2.)
Second, Appellants have not persuasively explained why a change in
display size is not an event indicating a change. Third, in light of the
Examiner's Official Notice, Iwabuchi's image files include image size
information. Therefore, Iwabuchi's image files, which are content, include
the changed image size, which is attribute information about an event
indicating a change.
On Reply, Appellants argue that the change described in paragraph 59
of I wabuchi, which was cited by the Examiner, is not a change in a "terminal
type, the user preference, [or] the content-serviced party." (Reply Br. 2.)
We will not consider this argument, however, because the Examiner relied
on this paragraph for the element-at-issue in the Final Action. (Final Act. 9.)
Appellants have not explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments
were necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance
constituting "good cause" for its belated presentation.
Accordingly, Appellants could not wait for the reply to raise this
argument. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 69 and claims 72, 74, 76,
79, and 81, not separately argued. (App. Br. 6-8.)
5
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
Claims 73, 75, 80, 83, 98, and 99
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 73, 75, 80, 83, 98,
and 99 as for claims 69 and 76. (App. Br. 8.) Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of claims 73, 75, 80, 83, 98, and 99.
Claims 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, and 96
Appellants argue claims 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, and 96 on the basis
of claim 84. (App. Br. 8-9.) The issue for claim 84 is whether the
Examiner erred in finding Negishi discloses (i) an event indicating a change
in terminal type, user preference, or content-serviced party and (ii) selecting
scene elements or scene element sets based on such an event. (App. Br. 9.)
The Examiner finds that N egishi teaches dividing scene description
data into division candidate units, which correspond to scene elements.
(Ans. 5.) The Examiner further finds that Negishi teaches outputting the
candidate units to a plurality of layers and that these layers correspond to
scene element sets. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner further finds that Negishi
selects the layers (scene element sets) for display based on the receiving
terminal's device capabilities. (Ans. 7.) (The Specification refers to a
change in a terminal's capacity as a change in terminal type (e.g., "a change
in a terminal type caused by a change in CPU process rate, available
memory capacity, or remaining battery power .... " (at Spec. 32)) Spec. 32-
35, which includes the paragraph labeled 82 in the publication of this
application (US 2009/000343 Al)). The Answer (at 8-9) cites paragraph 82
as teaching a change in a terminal's capacity as a change in terminal type.
The Examiner further finds that Negishi dynamically selects the layers for
display based on dynamic changes in the decoding terminal. (Ans. 8-9.)
6
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
The Examiner concludes that these disclosures in Negishi teach the
limitations-at-issue. (Ans. 6-9.)
In reply, Appellants do not dispute any of the above findings. (Reply
Br. 3--4.) Appellants argue, however, that Negishi's disclosures regarding
the decoding terminals do not relate to having a content receiver "selecting
scene elements .... " (Id. at 4.) We will not consider this argument,
however, because the Examiner relied on this disclosure in Negishi for the
limitation-at-issue in the Final Action. (Final Act. 3.) Appellants have not
explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments were necessitated by
a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance constituting "good
cause" for its belated presentation. Accordingly, Appellants could not wait
for the reply to raise this issue. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
In light of the fact that Appellants have not presented any persuasive
arguments or evidence rebutting the Examiner's findings, we sustain the
rejection of claim 84 and of claims 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, and 96, not
separately argued. (App. Br. 8-9.)
Claims 88, 92, 95, 100, and 1 OJ
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 88, 92, 95, 100, and
101 as for claims 84 and 91. (App. Br. 9.) Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 88, 92, 95, 100, and 101.
7
Appeal2014-009236
Application 12/147,052
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 69, 72-76, 79-81, 83-85, 87-92,
and 94--101.
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
8