Ex Parte Toff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2018

14090272 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/090,272 11/26/2013
101198 7590 09/13/2018
Patent Docket Administrator
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Toff
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.
25832.228 (L0228) 1203
EXAMINER
ENGLAND, SARA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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 JASON TOFF, JOHN GREGG, RUSHABH ASHOK DOSHI,
ROBERT STEVEN GLICKSTEIN, and MOLLY CASTLE NIX 1
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, CARLL.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Google, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to collaborative video
editing in a cloud environment. (See Specification, ,r 1 ).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
causing, by a processing device, presentation of a
collaborative video project within a user interface on a display
device for a first user account in a plurality of user accounts
with which the collaborative video project is shared, wherein
the collaborative video project presented for the first user
account comprises a set of one or more shared video clips that
are accessible within the collaborative video project by the
plurality of user accounts in response to the collaborative video
project being shared with the plurality of user accounts and a
first set of one or more personal video clips that are accessible
within the collaborative video project by the first user account
and not accessible within the collaborative video project by
ones of the plurality of user accounts other than the first user
account;
receiving a first user input from a computer device for
the first user account, wherein the first user input comprises a
selection of a first video clip in the first set of one or more
2
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
personal video clips within the user interface presented for the
first user account;
in response to receiving the first user input, adding the
first video clip to the set of one or more shared video clips
within the user interface;
causing, by the processing device, presentation of the
collaborative video project within the user interface on a
display device for a second user account in the plurality of user
accounts, wherein the collaborative video project presented for
the second user account comprises the set of one or more shared
video clips and a second set of one or more personal video clips
that are accessible within the collaborative video project by the
second user account and not accessible within the collaborative
video project by ones of the plurality of user accounts other
than the second user account;
receiving a second user input from a computer device for
the second user account, wherein the second user input
comprises a selection of the first video clip in the set of one or
more shared video clips within the user interface presented for
the second user account; and
in response to receiving the second user input, adding the
first video clip to a collaborative video for the collaborative
video project within the user interface.
Reference and Rejection2
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Lussier (US 2011/0026898 Al, published Feb. 3, 2011).
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-20. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. Appellants argue the invention is not anticipated by Lussier
because "Lussier do not disclose that a set of video clips are made accessible
within a video project by other user accounts in response to the video project
being shared with the other user accounts." (App. Br. 11, emphasis ours).
Specifically, Appellants argue
Lussier discloses that the media and video files are made
accessible to the certain users in response to the setting of
folder permissions. Lussier does not disclose that the media
and video files are made accessible to the certain users in
response to the video project being shared with the users.
Lussier requires the extra steps of placing the media and video
files in a folder for the video project and setting permissions
information for the folder where the media and video files are
placed.
(Hereinafter "extra steps" argument, emphasis in original removed,
panel's emphasis added; Id.).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Lussier does not disclose ''personal video clips that are accessible
within the collaborative video project by the first user account and not
accessible within the collaborative video project by ones of the plurality of
user accounts other than the first user account"; (hereinafter "personal"
limitation, App. Br. 13).
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Lussier anticipates the invention as
recited in claim 1?
4
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Except as noted herein, we agree
with the Examiner and adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 7-9). However, we
highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
As to above contention 1, Appellants' claim does not preclude
Lussier's extra (intervening) steps of placing the media and video files in a
folder. In particular, the Examiner finds
the folders of Lussier are the shared video clips the user may add
to a collaborative video project. Once the project is formed it is able
to be shared and during the normal course of operation as laid out by
Lussier, a user could create a new video project with two or more
video clips, share the project with other users, thereby making the
clips accessible in response to the project being shared and set
permissions allowing them to add their own clips to the project.
Ans. 8.
In other words, the Lussier clips are made accessible in response to
the project being shared. Nothing in the claim precludes the extra steps in
this chain of causation and, as such, Appellants' arguments are unavailing
and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Regarding the Examiner's broader reading (see In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), because "applicants may amend claims to
narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
5
Appeal2018-003443
Application 14/090,272
unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants'
arguments. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that Lussier discloses the
"personal" limitation because private (Lussier ,r,r 7 8, 101) equates to the
claimed "personal" limitation.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief, but
find them unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner's responses. Consequently,
we conclude there is no reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-2 0.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Lussier 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) (2011 ).
AFFIRMED
6