Ex Parte Vinokurov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2014

12146716 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014)

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.
12/146,716 06/26/2008 Dmitri Vinokurov 22001-US 5662
23553 7590 10/16/2014
MARKS & CLERK
P.O. BOX 957
STATION B
OTTAWA, ON K1P 5S7
CANADA
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2014 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 DMITRI VINOKUROV and ROB MACINTOSH
____________________

Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to suppressing unwanted advertisements in an
IP video broadcast and transmitting advertisements with metadata. Claims 1
and 19, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

2
1. A method of controlling display of advertisements within
a video over internet protocol (IP) stream originating at a
content provider, comprising:
at an access aggregation point, receiving a first video
channel of the stream;
at the access aggregation point, transmitting the first
video channel of the stream to an endpoint;
upon detection by the access aggregation point of
metadata indicating an advertisement within the first video
channel, comparing the metadata with preset criteria; and
if the comparison indicates that the advertisement is
undesirable, the access aggregation point suppressing display of
the advertisement by switching transmission to a second video
channel.

19. A method of transmitting advertisements within a video
over internet protocol (IP) stream, comprising:
associating metadata with an advertisement;
inserting the metadata within an encoding frame of a
payload of the advertisement; and
transmitting the payload of the advertisement within the
video over IP stream.

Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections of claims 1–20 in the
Answer:
Claims 1–7, 9, 11, 15–17, and 19–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Schlack (US 2002/0087975 A1, published July 4,
2002).
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

3
Claims 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schlack and Haeuser (US 2007/0283384 A1, published
Dec. 6, 2007).
Claims 13–14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schlack and Wilkins (US 5,446,919, issued Aug. 29,
1995).

ISSUES ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue presented on appeal with respect to independent
claims 1 and 15 is whether Schlack discloses detection of metadata
indicating an advertisement and comparing the metadata with preset criteria.
The issue presented on appeal with respect to independent claim 19 is
whether Schlack discloses inserting metadata associated with an
advertisement within an encoding frame of a payload of the advertisement.
The dispositive issue with respect to claim 20, which depends from claim
19, is whether Schlack discloses that the metadata of claim 19 includes the
fields recited in claim 20.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 15
Appellants argue that independent claims 1 and 15 require comparing
metadata within the first video channel with preset criteria, and that Schlack
does not teach this limitation. Claim 1 recites that the metadata is detected
by the access aggregation point and compared with preset criteria.
Similarly, claim 15 recites “means for detecting metadata within the first
video channel indicating an advertisement within the first video channel”
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

4
and “means for comparing the metadata with preset criteria.” We agree with
Appellants that these limitations are not disclosed by Schlack.
Schlack discloses selectively switching between presentation streams
that have different advertisements to present a preferred advertisement to a
segment of viewers. See Schlack Abstract. “For each programming
channel, the routing station 60 in the cable node is configured to detect an
upcoming avail [e.g., ad insertion spot] and select one of the presentation
streams in that channel, carrying an upcoming ad that best matches the
market segment characteristics of the cable node.” Id. ¶ 47. Schlack
discloses the use of digital or analog cue tones embedded within the stream
to detect advertisements. See id. ¶¶ 47, 60. Schlack further discloses:
When the ad location detector 64 detects a cue tone (Cue Tone
#1) in the first presentation stream, it informs the presentation
stream selector 66 of this detection. . . . The presentation
stream selector 66 then examines a table or list of
scheduled/inserted ads identifying which ads are inserted in
which avails for each of the presentation streams 61a. This
table further identifies market segment(s) associated with each
scheduled ad.
Id. ¶ 66. The market segments identified in the table are then compared to
“demographics or other characteristics” associated with a segment of
viewers, and a different stream with more appropriate ads may be selected
based on the comparison. Id. ¶ 67.
In Schlack, the table with information regarding advertisements is not
provided within the video stream, but is provided separately. See id. ¶ 67
(“The table may be provided to the selector 66 by the ad scheduler 44
through the distribution network 50 or a server on the network 50.”). Thus,
the metadata that is compared to the preset criteria is not disclosed to be
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

5
“within the first video channel” as required by independent claim 15. Claim
1 requires “detection by the access aggregation point of metadata indicating
an advertisement within the first video channel,” which may be met by
Schlack’s disclosure of cue tones, but Schlack does not disclose that this
metadata is compared with any preset criteria, as required by claim 1.
Rather, once a cue tone is detected, presentation stream selector 66 compares
the table with data about the advertisements to market segment
characteristics provided in another manner. See Schlack ¶¶ 66–67. The
table with data about the advertisements is not the same metadata (i.e., cue
tones) detected to indicate an advertisement within the first video channel.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schlack. For the same reasons,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims that depend from claims 1 and 15
and were rejected as anticipated by Schlack. Claims 8, 10, 12–14, and 18
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but the Examiner does not rely on the
teachings of secondary references Haeuser or Wilkins to remedy the
deficiencies discussed with respect to claims 1 and 15. Thus, we also do not
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2–14 and 16–18.

Claim 19
Appellants argue that Schlack does not teach “associating metadata
with an advertisement” and “inserting the metadata within an encoding
frame of a payload of the advertisement,” as required by claim 19.
Appellants recognize that paragraph 60 of Schlack, which the Examiner
relied upon in rejecting this claim (Ans. 8), “describes embodiments in
which well-known cue tones within the signal may be used to detect the start
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

6
of avails.” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue, however, that “these cue-tones are
neither metadata nor are they associated with an advertisement.” Id.
Appellants state that, at most, the cue tones are associated with an avail,
which, “in the context of advertising, is an advertising slot and not an
advertisement.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. In the context of
Schlack’s disclosure, detection of a cue tone indicates the presence of an
upcoming advertisement within the stream. Schlack teaches that the
multiple presentation stream (“MPS”) generator inserts advertisements into a
programming stream according to an ad schedule. See Schlack ¶ 41. When
a cue tone is detected for purposes of determining whether to switch to
another stream with a different advertisement, see Schlack ¶ 66, the cue tone
conveys data about the advertisement with which it is associated, i.e., that
the advertisement directly follows the cue tone. This constitutes metadata
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “metadata,” i.e., data about
data.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.

Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites that the metadata
includes various fields conveying information about the advertisement. The
Examiner does not find that the cue tones disclosed in Schlack have fields
conveying the information required by claim 20. Although the Examiner
identifies Figure 5 of Schlack as disclosing some additional information
about the advertisements in the video stream, the Examiner’s findings do not
show Schlack discloses that this information is inserted “within an encoding
Appeal 2012-006228
Application 12/146,716

7
frame of a payload of the advertisement,” as recited in claim 19. Given this
deficiency, we decline to reach the issue of whether the fields disclosed in
Figure 5 of Schlack otherwise meet the limitations of claim 20.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 as
anticipated by Schlack.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record in light of Appellants’ contentions,
we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 and 20. The
rejection of claim 19 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh