Ex Parte Xhafa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201814254535 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) Copy Citation 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 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 7 and 17.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation