Ex Parte Xhafa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14254535 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/254,535 04/16/2014
23494 7590 03/29/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ariton E. XHAF A
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.
TI-73702 5095
EXAMINER
TOPGY AL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARITON E. XHAF A and ANUJ BATRA 1
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, and 22-26, which are all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1, 11, 21, 27, and 28 were
cancelled. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 7 and 17.
Ans. 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Applicant, Texas
Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to a digital video recorder that
automatically extends the time of a program being recorded based on certain
criteria. Spec. i-fi-15-9. Claims 2 and 9 illustrate the appealed subject matter
and read as follows, with emphasis added to the disputed limitations:
2. A system comprising:
a content interface to receive program content;
a user interface to permit a user to schedule a user-
selected program content for recording, the user-selected
program content having a scheduled start time and a scheduled
end time;
a program content analyzer to detect a video pattern in
the user-selected program content; and
a recording unit to record the user-selected program
content and to automatically extend the recording past the
scheduled end time based on the detected video pattern.
9. A system, comprising:
a content intedace to receive program content;
a user interface to permit. a user lo schedule a user-
selected program content for recording, the user-selected
program content having a scheduled start time and a scheduled
end time;
a program content analyzer to detect an audio pattern in
the user-selected program content; and
a recording unit to record the user-selected program
content and to automatically extend the recording past the
scheduled end lime based on the detected audio pattern.
2
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 2, 12, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
and/or§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jojic et al. (US 2012/0099795 Al; Apr.
26, 2012). Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 8, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jojic. Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 3-7, 13-17, and 23-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jojic and McClanahan et al. (US
2011/0311205 Al; Dec. 22, 2011). Final Act. 5-7.
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jojic and Sonoda (US 2008/0163306 Al; July 3, 2008).
Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 2, 12, and 22
Appellants argue Jojic does not disclose "a program content analyzer
to detect a video pattern in the user-selected program content," as recited in
claim 2. See App. Br. 8-14. In particular, Appellants argue Jojic discloses
identifying a transition between video having little to no text and video
having more substantial amounts of text, such as a credit roll at the end of a
video program. App. Br. 10-13 (citing Jojic ,-r 20). Appellants argue "Jojic
does not teach or suggest that such 'more substantial amount of text' is a
'video pattern."' Id. at 10 (emphasis removed). Appellants argue the
Examiner's finding that Jojic discloses the disputed limitation is
"supposition not supported by fact, which is little more than improper
hindsight reconstruction which must be reversed." Id. at 10.
3
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in citing paragraphs in
the brief summary section of Jojic's specification because Jojic "issues a
warning" that its summary "is not intended to identify key or critical
elements of the disclosure or to delineate the scope of the disclosure." Reply
Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, this disclaimer "warns
against Examiner's action." Id. at 4.
Finally, Appellants also argue Jojic "teaches away" from limitations
in claim 2 because Jojic discloses terminating, not extending, a recording
when a credit roll is detected. Reply Br. 4-6.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Jojic discloses detecting the presence or lack of
text, for example a credit roll, in a video stream. Ans. 9-11; see also Jojic
i-fi-120-26. Jojic discloses extending a recording when a video stream is
determined to fail to include a credit roll at the scheduled end of the program
(e.g., overtime in a sporting event). Jojic i120. We agree with the Examiner
that the presence or absence of text in a video stream constitutes a "video
pattern," as claimed, even if Jojic does not explicitly refer to the text blocks
as a "video pattern." Ans. 10-11. Anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis'
test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N. V. v.
United States Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir.
1986)). "An anticipatory reference, however, need not duplicate word for
word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953
F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We are also not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' argument
that Jojic "warns against the Examiner's action." See Reply Br. 4. Jojic's
brief summary includes a disclaimer that the summary is not intended to
4
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
delineate the scope of the disclosure. Instead, the summary is a prelude to
the detailed description. This disclaimer does not negate the fact that certain
portions of the summary disclose the subject matter claimed by Appellants,
as found by the Examiner. Whether the summary delineates the scope of the
purported invention in Jojic is irrelevant to whether Jojic discloses the
elements of Appellants' claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we find this
argument unpersuasive.
Appellants' argument that Jojic "teaches away" from the claimed
subject matter is similarly unavailing. First, "whether a reference 'teaches
away' from [an] invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis."
Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Second, Jojic does not "teach away" from extending a recording
based on detecting a video pattern because Jojic discloses detecting a video
stream that lacks substantial amounts of text (i.e., a credit roll), and
extending the recording when such a video pattern is detected, as explained
above.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2 as anticipated by Jojic. We, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 2 as anticipated by Jojic. We also sustain the anticipation
rejections of independent claims 12 and 22, for which Appellants do not
offer separate arguments. See App. Br. 8-13.
Independent claims 9 and 19
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as
unpatentable over Jojic and Sonoda. App. Br. 27-35. In particular,
Appellants argue the Examiner relies on Sonoda as teaching voice
recognition and Jojic as teaching detecting a video pattern in concluding that
5
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
the combined references teach or suggest "a program content analyzer to
detect an audio pattern in the user-selected program content," as recited in
claim 9. Id. at 33. Appellants argue Jojic does not teach detecting a video
pattern for the same reasons as argued for claim 2. See Id. at 29-33.
Appellants further argue Sonoda teaches detecting voices of commentators
and comparing voices of people to determine whether a program has ended,
but Sonoda does not teach comparing "patterns" of the voices. Id. at 33-34
(citing Sonoda i-f 8).
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. For the reasons
explained above with respect to claim 2, we agree with the Examiner that
Jojic teaches detecting a "video pattern." The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, Sonoda teaches comparing voices detected in a program to
determine whether to extend the program. Ans. 14; see also Sonoda i-f 8.
We agree with the Examiner that comparing voices to identify whether a
person from a program that was scheduled to have ended is still speaking in
the video stream involves "detect[ing] an audio pattern" as claimed. Ans.
14. Appellants' argument focuses on Sonoda's failure to explicitly state that
the voice recognition involves an "audio pattern," but this is not required
because an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand from Sonoda's
teachings that identifying the voice of someone speaking in a video program
involves "detect[ing] an audio pattern." Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jojic and Sonoda teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claim 9 as
unpatentable over Jojic and McClanahan. We also sustain the rejections of
6
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
independent claim 19 and dependent claims 10 and 20, for which Appellants
do not offer separate arguments. See App. Br. 27-35.
Dependent claims 6, 16, and 24
Claim 6 recites "[t]he system of claim 5 wherein the recording is to be
extended until a predetermined time period after the program content
analyzer no longer determines the score to be tied." Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because although McClanahan teaches
extending recording time if a sporting event is tied, McClanahan fails to
teach or suggest any follow-up determination of once the game is no longer
tied. App. Br. 17.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that McClanahan teaches a determination loop wherein
the system determines whether a game is finished based on reports of the
status of the event. Ans. 12 (citing McClanahan, Fig, 9, i-fi-f 110-111). The
Examiner finds the "reports of the status of the event" includes reports
indicating whether a game is tied or whether a game that was previously tied
is no longer tied. Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because even if
McClanahan teaches determining whether a game is finished based on when
the game is no longer tied, claim 6 requires recording to be extended "until a
predetermined time after the program content analyzer no longer determines
the score to be tied." Reply Br. 8. (emphasis omitted). According to
Appellants, any finding that recording would continue for a predetermined
time after the game is no longer tied "is supposition not supported by fact
which is little more than improper hindsight reconstruction." Id.
7
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. An ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand from McClanahan that extending recording is based on
reports of the status of the event. These reports may include whether the
game is no longer tied (e.g., in a sudden death sporting event). When the
game is no longer tied, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that
the second that a sporting event completes is not necessarily the second that
a broadcast of the sporting event ends-there may be further discussion by
the broadcasters, interviews with players, or simply a graphic showing the
final score. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious in light of the combined teachings of McClanahan and Jojic to
extend the recording for some predetermined time after the report of the
game status indicates that the game is no longer tied. We, therefore, are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable
over Jojic and McClanahan. We also sustain the rejections of claims 16 and
24, for which Appellants offer the same arguments. See App. Br. 20, 22, 23.
Dependent claims 8, 18, and 25
Claim 8 recites:
The system of claim 2 wherein the video pattern is of a
venue of a live sporting event, and wherein tl 1 e program
content analyzer:
and
analyzes the video pattern before the scheduled end time;
extends the recording past the scheduled end time;
analyzes the video pattern after the scheduled end time;
extends the recording event further past the scheduled
end time based on a determination that the video pattern
continues to show the same venue after the scheduled end time.
8
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
The Examiner finds Jojic teaches broadcasting a sporting event. Ans.
12 (citing Jojic i-fi-f l, 3). The Examiner further finds Jojic teaches extending
the recording of an event, including a sporting event, when it is determined
that the video does not include enough text to signal an end of the broadcast.
Id. at 13. According to the Examiner, the video frames compared before and
after the scheduled end time "would have to include the venue (be in
captured [sic] in the background of video of a close up of a player or a
particular camera view that directly shows the venue, such as a widescreen
shot or a panning shot)." Id. at 13.
Appellants argue nothing in Jojic indicates that the broadcast event is
a "live sporting event" as claimed (Reply Br. 9) and that Jojic is silent as to
the venue being used in the cited determining step (App. Br. 25-26 (citing
Jojic ,-r 26)).
The Examiner finds Jojic teaches "extend[ing] the recording event ...
based on a determination that the video pattern continues to show the same
venue after the scheduled end time" because the video frames before the
credit roll "would have to include the venue." Ans. 13. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that Jojic
teaches a "determination that the video pattern continues to show the same
venue" because Jojic's determination is based on the absence or presence of
text, not the absence or presence of the same venue. Moreover, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have known that the video program of the sporting
event may or may not depict the venue at the end of the program. For
example, the program may depict commentators discussing the sporting
event after its conclusion. Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding Jojic teaches the disputed limitation.
9
Appeal2017-007281
Application 14/254,535
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable
over Jojic. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 18 and 25, which
recite commensurate limitations.
Dependent claims 3-5, 13-15, and 2 3
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-5 for the
same reasons as claim 2. App. Br. 16-17. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error for the reasons set forth above. Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-15 for the same reasons as claim 12.
App. Br. 20-21. We are not persuaded of Examiner error for the reasons set
forth above. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 for
the same reasons as claim 22. App. Br. 21-22. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error for the reasons set forth above.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 13-15, and 23 as
unpatentable over Jojic and McClanahan.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2-6, 9, 10,
12-16, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 8, 18, and 25.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10