Ex Parte Yin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2018

14106922 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2018)

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.
14/106,922 12/16/2013 Fenglin Yin 20131132 8441
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
MCBETH, WILLIAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENGLIN YIN
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,9221
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9-11, 13—16, 18, 19, 21, and 23—25, which
constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as “Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies.” App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to real-time insertion of
secondary video (e.g., advertisements and emergency alerts) into an adaptive
video presentation being streamed to a client device (e.g., an online
video). Spec. 112. Claims 1,11, and 25 are independent. Claims 1, 4, and
21 are illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal, and read as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing, at a playlist server device in a video service
provider network, a last position in an adaptive streaming
presentation of a video program associated with a client device;
receiving, from the client device, at the playlist server
device in the video service provider network, a request for the
last position in the adaptive streaming presentation of the video
program;
sending the last position in the video program to the client
device;
receiving, at the playlist server device, a periodic update
of a current position in the video program from the client device;
determining whether a secondary video content insertion
uniform resource indicator (URI) is received, wherein the
secondary video content insertion URI is associated with
secondary video content and the secondary video content
insertion URI includes a manifest file for an adaptive video
presentation of the secondary video content;
determining a time that the secondary video content
requires insertion into the video program; and
2
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
sending a response to the client device that includes the
secondary video content insertion URI and a timing indicator
based on the time that the secondary video content requires
insertion into the video program, in response to a determination
that the secondary video content insertion URI has been received,
wherein the client device is configurable to send a particular last
position in the video program and switch from the adaptive
streaming presentation of the video program to adaptive
streaming presentation of the secondary video content based on
receipt of the secondary video content insertion URI and
information associated with the client device and to switch back
to the adaptive streaming presentation of video program at the
particular last position in the video program at an end of the
secondary video content.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further
comprising:
sending the timing indicator that indicates that the client
device is to immediately switch to the emergency alert.
21. The client device of claim 11, wherein the client device is
required to allow insertion of the secondary video content in
exchange for reduced cost access to the video program.
App. Br. 25—26, 29 (Claims App’x.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23—25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong et al.
(US 2011/0320626 Al; Dec. 29, 2011) (“Wong”), Surianarayanan et al.
(US 2013/0219023 Al; Aug. 22, 2013) (“Surianarayanan”), Haberman et al
(US 2009/0094639 Al; Apr. 9, 2009) (“Haberman”), and Simongini et al.
3
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
(US 2009/0204719 Al; Aug. 13, 2009) (“Simongini”). Final Act. (May 11,
2016) 4—26.2
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman, Simongini, and Tumuluru et
al. (US 2014/0282704 Al; Sept. 18, 2014) (“Tumuluru”). Final Act. 27-28.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman, Simongini, and Li et al.
(US 2007/0107011 Al; May 10, 2007) (“Li”). Final Act. 28-29.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9—11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23—25
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding [i] Surianarayanan
teaches a secondary video content insertion URI (uniform resource
indicator) and [ii] Wong teaches a singular client device performing the “last
position” communications, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10—14. Appellant
2 Claims 9 and 25 also were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite,
Final Act. 3, but this rejection has been withdrawn. Adv. Act. (July 27,
2016)2.
4
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
further argues the Examiner erred in finding a rationale or motivation to
combine the references. We address Appellant’s arguments in turn.
As to the first disputed limitation, as the Examiner finds,
Surianarayanan teaches a server determining an emergency alert is “active”
and consequently providing a response to the client. Surianarayanan || 33—
34; Final Act. 6—7. As the Examiner further finds, Surianarayanan teaches
the response includes a notification for the alert, a playlist, and URIs for
playlist segments. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that one
of ordinary skill would understand the server as determining an alert is
active and accordingly providing the client a mechanism to obtain the alert
(i.e., the mechanism being the notification and client’s consequent actions).
Surianarayanan 134.
Appellant, nevertheless, argues Surianarayanan’s server does not, as
claim 1 requires, determine whether a secondary video content insertion URI
is received, and then send the URI to the client for playback of the secondary
video. App. Br. 13—14. The Examiner, however, relies on Surianarayanan’s
teachings as modified in view of Haberman, not Surianarayanan alone, as
teaching the claimed invention’s use of the content insertion URI. Final
Act. 8. Specifically, the Examiner finds Haberman’s advertisement
notification includes a URI and time of insertion for the advertisement. Id.;
Haberman 149. In view of Haberman, the Examiner finds it would have
been obvious for Surianarayanan’s alert notification to include a URI and
time of insertion for the alert. Id. Appellant’s argument based on
Surianarayanan alone does not, therefore, persuade us the Examiner erred.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding
5
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where a rejection is based on a combination of references).
Regarding the second disputed limitation, as the Examiner finds,
Wong’s Figures 7A—B teach client devices 102A—B: updating a server as to
the last “temporal position” of streaming video; requesting the last position
from the server in requesting to resume playback of the video; and
accordingly receiving the last position from the server insofar as receiving a
new play list that demarks the last played segment of the video. Wong
86—90; Final Act. 4—5. Appellant argues:
Wong is directed to a method for pausing playback of a media
program on a first device and resuming playback of the media
program on a second device. Such features do not disclose or
suggest receiving the request from the client device and sending
the last position to the same client device, as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 10-11.
We, however, agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary
skill would understand Wong’s description of “[ojther embodiments” (at
196) teaches the resuming device of Figure 7B (steps 732-44) as selectively
either a new device 102B (as illustrated in Figure 7B) or the same device
102A where playback last occurred. Ans. 3; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding obviousness may “take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(explaining that prior art references must be “considered together with the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art”). The pertinent
teaching in Wong is that these other embodiments determine “where
6
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
playback should begin anew with the new device or original device” in
response to “undesired shutdowns and terminations.” Wong 196. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the foregoing passages in Wong teach
performing the Figure 7B playback resumption (i.e., steps 732-44) on the
original device 102 A, to address an unexpected shutdown of that device
102A. Ans. 3.
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not found a sufficient
rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references’
teachings as proposed. App. Br. 16—17. We, however, discern no error in
the Examiner’s unrebutted rationale. Ans. 10—11. Appellant’s Reply Brief
simply quotes the Examiner, but does not address the recited reasons for
modification (e.g., “to notify the user device of Wong of the availability of
an advertisement to be played back”). Reply Br. 7—8. Appellants’ argument
refers to the abstracts of the prior art references, and then summarily states
the references are directed to “different problems” that, as such, would not
motivate an artisan to combine their teachings. Id.', see also App. Br. 17—18
(mirroring the Reply Brief statements). The Examiner, however, has
explained how “[e]ach of Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman, and Simongini
discloses a method and system for interrupting and resuming playback of
streaming media,” Ans. 9, with these features plainly being relevant to
problems addressed by the claimed invention. Id. at 10—11.
We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman, and Simongini.
Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, and 24
separately. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error as to those claims.
7
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 11 and its dependent claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23 “[f]or reasons
similar to those discussed . . . with respect to claim 1.” App. Br. 18—19.
Appellant makes the same assertion regarding independent claim 25. App.
Br. 19-20. We, however, are not persuaded the Examiner erred regarding
claim 1. See supra. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not persuade
us of error regarding claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, and 25.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23—25 as obvious over Wong,
Surianarayanan, Haberman, and Simongini.
Claims 4 and 14
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites the timing indicator as
“indicating] that the client device is to immediately switch to [an]
emergency alert.” Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale to modify
Haberman’s timing indicator in view of Tumuluru’s alert priority value (and
thereby achieve the claimed timing indicator) is “merely a conclusory
statement providing an alleged benefit of the combination . . . [without]
providing] the requisite motivation” to add the benefit. App. Br. 21.3 We
are not persuaded.
As the Examiner finds, Haberman teaches a URI and timing indicator
for a client’s insertion of advertising. Final Act. 8; Haberman 149; supra 5—
6 (addressing Haberman). As the Examiner further finds, Tumuluru’s
3 Appellant argues claims 4 and 14 as a group. App. Br. 20-21. We choose
claim 4 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(4).
8
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
paragraphs 11,61, and 98 teach an alert priority value indicating whether an
alert is to be immediately viewed. Final Act. 27. Specifically, “[w]hen the
alert priority value is above a predetermined threshold, the EAS emergency
service content is immediately played” and the client is consequently
“instructed] ... to immediately retrieve the EAS emergency service
content[.]” Tumuluru 198; see also Tumuluru 1 58 (use of a URI to retrieve
an alert).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand each of the
foregoing disclosures as teaching a content locator (e.g., URI) and timing
indicator for a client’s insertion of secondary video content. Accordingly,
we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill,
when implementing a content locator (URI) and timing indicator such as
presented in Haberman, would additionally contemplate Tumuluru’s alert
priority value for the disclosed benefit of causing the client to immediately
obtain and insert an alert. This cited benefit is not a mere summary of what
Tumuluru’s alert priority value does, but rather sets forth why one of
ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the teachings of Tumuluru and
Haberman mutually directed to a client’s insertion of secondary video. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f... a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that [a technique] would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 and 14 as obvious over Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman,
Simongini, and Tumuluru.
9
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 11 and recites that “the client device is
required to allow insertion of the secondary video content in exchange for
reduced cost access to the video program.” Appellant argues:
Li merely discloses an internet based system that includes
different subscription levels and subsidizing service levels with
ads. This portion of Li, or any other portion of Li, does not
disclose the client device is required to allow insertion of the
secondary video content in exchange for reduced cost access to
the video program, as recited by claim 21.
App. Br. 22. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
As the Examiner finds, one of ordinary skill would understand Li’s
teaching to lower the purchase price of video content in exchange for more
advertising is not limited to lowering the prices of subscription service
levels, i.e., to lowering a subscription price in exchange for more advertising
within all subscribed video content. Ans. 20; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 421
(person of ordinary skill is not an automaton). As the Examiner further
finds, Li teaches that “some subscribers will pay more money to watch TV
with fewer ads” and “[ojther subscribers may be agreeable to watching more
ads if they can receive TV for less money.” Li 112; see also id. at 121;
Ans. 20; Final Act. 29. The pertinent teaching in Li is that providing each
viewer a tailored exchange of advertising and content price, e.g., a
personalized sliding-scale exchange, increases viewership and resulting
revenue. Li || 12, 21. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this
teaching of Li, in combination with Wong’s teaching to selectively add
advertisements to a user-selected program, suggests providing a user option
10
Appeal 2017-003975
Application 14/106,922
to accept advertising within a particular program in exchange for a lower
program cost. Ans. 5; Wong || 45—48, 59-60. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21 as obvious over Wong, Surianarayanan, Haberman, Simongini, and
Li.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 9—11, 13—16, 18,
19, 21, and 23-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11