Ex Parte Viegers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

13163353 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/163,353 06/17/2011
69316 7590 06/23/2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sander Martijn Viegers
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.
332576.01 9480
EXAMINER
BARRETT, RYANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
stevensp@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDER MARTIJN VIEGERS, and DANIEL ROSENSTEIN,
Appeal2015-001897
Application 13/163,353
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-15 and 21-25. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
and the evidence of record. 2 We concur with Appellants' conclusion that
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Jing (US 8,352,465 Bl; Jan.
1 Claims 16-20 have been canceled. App. Br. 33.
2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 21-25.
Ans. 2.
Appeal2015-001897
Application 13/163,353
8, 2013) and Bhumkar (US 2008/0092054 Al; Apr. 17, 2008) teaches or
suggests inserting into the video presentation near the selected video
segment a second video segment ("inserting" limitation), as recited in claim
1.
The Examiner relies on Jing to teach the disputed limitation. See
Final Act. 3 (citing Jing Fig. 6C, 5:13-26, 19:50-56); Ans. 4--5 (citing Jing
6B, 6C, 19:32-39). The cited sections of Jing describe "a system [that]
presents image search results in graphical format," and "the presented visual
representation of the image search results are combined with search results,
sponsored links, advertisements, software controls, publisher content,
images, video content, audio content, and other content." Jing 5:9-26. The
cited sections of Jing further describe "[a] user can select an image or an
image cluster within the graphical user interface" and "[u]pon selecting the
image cluster 629, the system displays a graphical user interface 630 (Fig.
6C) with the image cluster 629 beginning to expand (e.g., pop up) from a
small display to a larger display" (e.g., "the image cluster expands and
overlays a portion of the graphical user interface 630.). Jing 19:31-39; see
also Jing Figs 6B, 6C.
We agree with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 22) that there are
differences between presenting a zoomed in version of a collage of images
and inserting a video segment into a video presentation. See App. Br 22. In
particular, we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a video
presentation to be a consecutive presentation of video segments and the
insertion of a new video segment modifies the sequence of video segments
such that the inserted segment is becomes a part of the video presentation.
2
Appeal2015-001897
Application 13/163,353
Reply Br. 8. We agree with Appellants that the cited sections of Jing do
not teach or suggest such insertion.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner
has not established the combination of Jing and Bhumkar teaches or suggests
the "inserting" limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of: (i) claim 1; (ii) independent claim 21, which contain a
limitation substantially similar to the "inserting" limitation and for which the
Examiner similarly relies on Jing to teach (Final Act. 11-12); and (iii)
claims 2 and 22-25, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 21.
Claim 3 recites generate a video presentation comprising a sequence
of only the video segments of the media set ... [and] present in the sequence
of the video presentation near the zoomed video segment a second video
segment that is associated with the zoomed video segment. The Examiner
relies on the same previously discussed limitations of Jing to teach or
suggest this limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5. Appellants present
similar arguments to those made for claim 1 and argue the cited sections of
Jing do not describe generating a video presentation of sequence of video
segments or presenting in the sequence a second video segment associated
with the zoomed video segment. See App. Br. 21-22, 25. As discussed
supra, the cited sections of Jing describe presenting an expanded (zoomed
in) version of a cluster of images. Jing Figs 6B, 6C, 19:31-38. Appellants
persuade us that these sections of Jing do not teach or suggest the claimed
generating of a video presentation comprising a sequence of video segments
and presenting a second video segment in the sequence of images of the
video presentation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 3 and its dependent claims 4--15.
3
Appeal2015-001897
Application 13/163,353
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 and 21-25.
REVERSED
4