Ex Parte Venkitaraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2017

13542696 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2017)

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.
13/542,696 07/06/2012 Narayanan Venkitaraman CS39499 3714
43471 7590 06/05/2017
ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C
EXAMINER
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
SAMS, MICHELLE L
HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2017 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):
arris. docketing @ arris .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NARAYANAN VENKITARAMAN, SHIRLEY A. CHAYSINH,
HIREN M. MANDALIA, CRYSTA J. METCALF,
ASHLEY B. NOVAK, and ISAAC G. KULKA
Appeal 2016-006390
Application 13/542,6961
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify ARRIS Enterprises, Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006390
Application 13/542,696
Invention
Appellants disclose the augmentation of a multimedia presentation on
a first device through acquisition and exploration of a virtual environment
with virtual objects therein on a second device. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method of augmenting a user’s multimedia consumption
experience, the user being a user of a first user device and of a
second user device, the user using the first device to consume a
multimedia presentation, the method comprising:
providing, for use by one or more processors remote from the
first device, information that may be used by the one or more
processors to identify a location, the location being relevant to
at least part of the multimedia presentation;
identifying, by the one or more processors, the location;
acquiring, by the one or more processors, a virtual environment,
the virtual environment being representative of the identified
location;
acquiring, by the one or more processors, one or more virtual
objects, each virtual object relating to at least part of the
multimedia presentation;
determining, by the one or more processors, for each virtual
object, a position for that virtual object within the virtual
environment;
for each virtual object, including that virtual object in the
virtual environment at the position within the virtual
environment determined for that virtual object; and
presenting to the user, using the second device, the virtual
environment with the one or more virtual objects included
therein;
2
Appeal 2016-006390
Application 13/542,696
wherein the virtual environment is to some extent explorable by
the user using the second user device; and
wherein the virtual objects within the virtual environment are
capable of being interacted with by the user.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Limp (US 2013/
0347018 Al; Dec. 26, 2013) and Gefen (US 2011/0063415 Al; Mar. 17,
2011). Final Act. 3-13.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Limp, Gefen, and Davis (US 2010/0205628 Al;
Aug. 12,2010). Final Act. 13—15.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Limp, Gefen, and Donnelly (US 2004/0222988 Al;
Nov. 11,2004). Final Act. 15—16.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Limp, Gefen, and Sheba (US 2009/0225026 Al; Sept. 10,
2009). Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Limp’s presentation of
supplemental content to device 204 while media content is presented on a
television teaches or suggests using a first device (e.g., a television) to
consume a multimedia presentation and presenting to the user, using the
second device (e.g., device 204) information related to the multimedia
presentation in the claimed manner. Final Act. 3^4 (citing, e.g., Limp
3
Appeal 2016-006390
Application 13/542,696
25, 31). The Examiner acknowledges that “Limp fails to teach the
supplemental information being a virtual environment of the identified
location,” but finds that “Gefen teaches a viewer may directly interact with a
3D object that is virtually placed in a physical location in a video scene.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Gefen Abstract).
In particular, the Examiner finds that “[i]n the modified invention, the
supplemental information of Limp would be the augmented video frames of
Gefen where the augmented video frames (said virtual environment) is the
same video as the video of the primary content of Limp, but augmented with
the virtual objects taught by Gefen.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 6. In other
words, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill to modify Limp to have multimedia presented on a
television while also displaying that same multimedia, augmented with
virtual objects, on a second device. The Examiner finds that modifying the
“supplemental content of Limp in view of Gefen is beneficial so that the user
can continue to view the content on the television if desired, but can access
the supplemental content on the table computer (110).” Ans. 8.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s cited rationale for the proposed
combination is unsupported (App. Br. 11), and we agree. The Examiner’s
findings do not show that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized
this as a benefit of duplicating multimedia content—augmented with virtual
objects—on a second device.
Moreover, as Appellants correctly note, the Examiner’s proffered
modification would modify “Limp’s supplemental (textual) content... to
include an entire stream of video, corresponding to the video content
displayed on the television of Limp.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2016-006390
Application 13/542,696
Although Limp’s supplemental content is not limited to mere text (see Limp
Fig. 5), the Examiner’s findings fall short of showing that Limp, alone or in
combination with Gefen, teaches or suggests the supplemental content being
a virtual environment consistent with the Examiner’s findings (i.e., the
virtual environment being the same video being presented on a television,
but augmented with virtual objects).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings fail
to show the combination of Limp and Gefen teaches or suggests “using the
first device to consume a multimedia presentation . . . [and] presenting to the
user, using the second device, the virtual environment,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1. Similarly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 4—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. With respect
to the remaining rejections, the Examiner does not show that Davis,
Donnelly, or Sheba cure the noted deficiency of Limp and Gefen.
Therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 3, 12, 15, and 18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5