Ex Parte Valdez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 201612045504 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/045,504 03/10/2008 25537 7590 08/25/2016 VERIZON PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John P. VALDEZ 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. 20070403 9400 EXAMINER PEACH, POLINA G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2016 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): patents@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN P. VALDEZ, YOHAN RAJAN, and AI-SHENG MAO Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14--22, which are all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc. (App. Br. 1 ). 2 Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled. Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary claims 1 and 20 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a customer premise equipment, a stream of media content; receiving, from a user through a user application programming interface (API) of the customer premise equipment, a user event command for tagging the media content; mapping the user event command against a plurality of predefined media tagging commands to validate the command as corresponding to one tagging command of the plurality of predefined media tagging commands; and inserting one or more tags into the media content based on the one tagging command, the one or more tags specifying one or more points by which the media content can be subsequently accessed and being determined based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user. 20. A system comprising: a content server configured to store media content; a content tagging device configured to communicate with the content server; and a customer premise equipment, including a user application programming interface (API) that is configured to receive a user event command from a user for tagging the media content, wherein the media device is configured to map the user event command against a plurality of predefined media tagging commands to validate the command as corresponding to one tagging command of the plurality of predefined media tagging commands, 2 Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 wherein the content tagging device is further configured to insert one or more tags into the media content based on the one tagging command, the one or more tags specifying one or more points by which the media content can be subsequently accessed and being determined based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user, and wherein the content tagging device is further configured to access the media content at at least one of the one or more points specified by the one or more tags for playback to the user. Claims 1, 4---6, 8-12, 14--17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ratliff (US 2007/0244903 Al; Oct. 18, 2007) and Yokota (US 2007/0194882 Al; Aug. 23, 2007) (see Final Act. 5-14). Claims 3, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ratliff, Yokota, and Maharajh (US 2008/0201225 Al; Aug. 21, 2008) (see Final Act. 14--16). Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boccon-Gibod (US 2005/0132401 Al; June 16, 2005) and Yokota (see Final Act. 16-18). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error as highlighted below. Rejections based on Ratliff In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Ratliff as disclosing all the recited elements except for "validate the command as corresponding to 3 Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 one tagging command of the plurality of predefined media tagging commands," for which the Examiner relies on Yokota (Final Act. 5-7). The Examiner specifically finds Ratliff discloses "inserting one or more tags into the media content based on the one tagging command" and accessing or determining the media content "based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user" as setting marks in the media item (Final Act. 6 (citing Ratliff iii! 61, 80, 86, 92)). Appellants contend Ratliff does not insert bookmarks based on the viewing behavior of a user nor based on the process recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8-10). Referring to paragraph 114 of Ratliff, Appellants argue bookmarks are generated "with the time code indicating a location within a media item when the user triggered the bookmark" (App. Br. 10). Appellants further argue Ratliffs disclosure of "'when a user triggered the bookmark' does not disclose or suggest, 'based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user' at ieast because a user triggering a bookmark is not predetermined criteria" (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 8), Ratliff's system determines preset criteria for inserting tags by a user and adds "the media item unique identifier and title and the time location at which the user selected the add" bookmark (Ans. 3 (citing Ratliff iii! 100, 114)). The Examiner further finds paragraph 5 of Ratliff discloses creating bookmarks by a user when the user presses a button or enters an input in order to set a bookmark or tag, which indicates inserting tags automatically in the media content based on the user's bookmarking preferences (id.). We also agree with the Examiner's findings that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the "inserting" step of 4 Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 claim 1 reads on Ratliff's inserting a tag into the media content in response to a tagging command wherein the tag is determined from a predefined criteria or the system's required criteria, as well as based on the user's bookmarking preferences (Ans. 6 (citing Figs. 14, 15, elements 1404, 1504; i-fi-f 100, 114)). Therefore, contrary to Appellants' argument that Ratliff's system uses user bookmarking preferences to recommend bookmarks to the user rather than to insert bookmarks into media content (Reply Br. 4), paragraphs 100 and 114 of Ratliff indicate bookmarks that are selected based on user preferences are added to the media content based on one tagging or bookmarking command triggered by the user (see Ans. 6). For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ratliff and Yokota teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, independent claims 9 and 11, as wen as dependent claims 4--8, 10, 12, and 14--19, which are argued based on the same reasons stated in arguing the patentability of claim 1 over the combination of Ratliff and Yokota or Ratliff, Yokota, and Maharajh (see App. Br. 11-12). Rejection based on Boccon-Gibod Appellants contend the cited portions in paragraphs 36 and 38--40 of Boccon-Gibod does not teach or suggest "the one or more tags ... being determined based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user," as recited in claim 20 (App. Br. 12-14). Appellants specifically argue the various inputs identified by the Examiner as the claimed tags 5 Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 based on predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user "are performed while a user is viewing content" (App. Br. 13-14). In response, the Examiner presents detailed findings with respect to the applied prior art reference and explains that tags can be created by the user or the system and alternatively can be generated and distributed by a server after a controller sends the tag information when the user activates the "COLD" or "HOT" key (Ans. 8 (citing Boccon-Gibod i-fi-18, 10)). The Examiner further finds these user selectable tags meet the recited "based on predetermined criteria" because they are preset tags and have tag files including information regarding the media program (id. (citing Boccon- Gibod i-fi-138, 43, 44)). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings and explanation regarding the teachings ofBoccon- Gibod and adopt them as our own. In particular we disagree with AppeUants' argument that activating the "COLD" or "HOT" key or other commands "cannot correspond to the claimed 'predetermined criteria based on viewing behavior of the user"' (Reply Br. 9) because the tags are added based on predetermined criteria corresponding to the keys a user selects, which relates to user preferences or viewing behavior (see Boccon-Gibod ,-r,-r 3 8--45). For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Boccon- Gibod and Yokota teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 20. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of Independent claim 6 Appeal2015-000460 Application 12/045,504 20 and dependent claims 21 and 22 which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 15). DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-12, and 14--22. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation