Google Technology Holdings LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 20212020001033 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/211,541 07/15/2016 Ajay K. Luthra 0715151.128-US3 1702 124447 7590 10/01/2021 Byrne Poh LLP / Google Technology Holdings LLC 11 Broadway, Ste 760 New York, NY 10004 EXAMINER PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 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): info@byrnepoh.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte AJAY K. LUTHRA and ARJUN RAMAMURTHY ________________ Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Google Technology Holdings LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to the conversion of three- dimensional video data to a two-dimensional format for display with an electronic program guide. Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Divelbiss US 2004/0218269 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Yoshida US 2008/0309755 A1 Dec. 18, 2008 Oota US 2009/0237494 A1 Sept. 24, 2009 Jung US 2009/0315979 A1 Dec. 24, 2009 Pontual US 2011/0255003 A1 Oct. 20, 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1–6, 8, 10–16, 18, 20, 21 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida Final Act. 5–12 7, 17 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida, Divelbiss Final Act. 12–13 9, 19 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida, Oota Final Act. 13 ANALYSIS Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 1–21, is reproduced below (disputed and key limitations emphasized, with bracketed numerals added). 1. A system for media guidance, the system comprising: at least one hardware processor that is configured to: Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 3 receive a request to display first guidance information associated with at least a first channel; cause first scaled video content corresponding to the first channel and the guidance data to be displayed in a guidance interface, wherein the guidance interface is displayed in a display mode that is configured for displaying two-dimensional content; [1] receive an indication that a second channel has been selected from a plurality of channels within the guidance interface; [2] in response to receiving the indication, determine that a video format associated with second scaled video content associated with the second channel is different than the display mode of the guidance interface, wherein the video format associated with the first scaled video content is compatible with the display mode of the guidance interface being a two-dimensional video content format and wherein the video format associated with the second scaled video content is incompatible with the display mode of the guidance interface being a three- dimensional video content format; [3] convert the second scaled video content to the video format of the first scaled video content in response to determining that the video format associated with the second scaled video content is different than the display mode of the guidance interface; and cause, without causing a change in the display mode of the guidance interface, the converted second scaled video content and second guidance data associated with the second channel to be displayed in the guidance interface, wherein the guidance interface indicates that the converted second scaled video content is available in the three-dimensional video content format. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 4 In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds and concludes: 1. Pontual’s presentation of an on-screen display when a user selects a channel—combined with Jung’s three-dimensional video processing methods—teaches or suggests limitation [1], receiving “an indication that a second channel has been selected from a plurality of channels within the guidance interface.” Final Act. 7 (citing Pontual ¶¶ 8–9, 42, 75, 95, Fig. 12; Jung ¶¶ 35–52, Figs. 1, 3, 5–6); Ans. 17–18 (an example of an on-screen display “is information that may be presented when the user selects a channel change”). 2. Pontual’s presentation of a two-dimensional on-screen display with an incompatible, selected three-dimensional video image teaches or suggests limitation [2], in response to receiving the indication, determin[ing] that a video format associated with second scaled video content associated with the second channel is different than the display mode of the guidance interface, wherein the video format associated with the first scaled video content is compatible with the display mode of the guidance interface being a two-dimensional video content format and wherein the video format associated with the second scaled video content is incompatible with the display mode of the guidance interface being a three-dimensional video content format. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Pontual ¶¶ 8–9, 42, 75, 82–103, Figs. 4A– 12); Ans. 18–20. 3. Pontual’s presentation of two identical sub-frames (i.e., a left image and a right image) that are perceived as a two-dimensional image— combined with Jung’s scaling of frames for packaging as subframes of an image—teaches or suggests limitation [3], converting “the Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 5 second scaled video content to the video format of the first scaled video content in response to determining that the video format associated with the second scaled video content is different than the display mode of the guidance interface.” Final Act. 8 (citing Pontual ¶¶ 82–103, Figs. 6–17; Jung ¶¶ 35, 61, Figs. 2D–3, 5); Ans. 20–21. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Pontual is simply concerned with the format of [an] on-screen display, where ‘[t]he generated OSD must match the frame compatible 3D format of the background frame 604.’” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Pontual ¶ 97). Appellant further argues “Pontual merely describes presenting a 2D version of the OSD and a 2D version of the background together instead of generating a 3D version of an OSD that is difficult to read.” Id. at 12 (citing Pontual ¶ 90). Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. Pontual teaches that a program guide can be an on-screen display. Pontual ¶ 8. Pontual also teaches that “[a]nother example [of an on-screen display] is information that may be presented when the user selects a channel change.” Id. (emphasis added). Pontual further discloses that presenting an on-screen display in two-dimensions while presenting a background (i.e., an already selected channel) in three-dimensions “can cause uncomfortable eyestrain if the foreground and background planes . . . conflict.” Pontual ¶ 90. Thus, Pontual presents a two-dimensional version of the on-screen display and a two-dimensional version of the background together. Id. Pontual further converts the on-screen display to a format compatible with the background frame by, for example, compressing the on-screen display (id. ¶ 97), thus avoiding corruption of the on-screen display (id. at Fig. 10). Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 6 The Examiner’s findings and analysis do not show that Pontual’s separate examples of on-screen displays, even when combined with Pontual’s adjustments—whether presenting a two-dimensional version of a three-dimensional background or whether converting an on-screen display to a format compatible with a background frame—teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Specifically, the Examiner does not show that Pontual teaches or suggests the portions of limitations [2] and [3] reciting responding to an indication that a second channel has been selected from a plurality of channels within a guidance interface by (1) determining that the second channel’s three-dimensional video content is “different than,” and “incompatible with,” the video format of the two-dimensional guidance interface and (2) converting the scaled video content of the second channel to the video format of a two-dimensional first channel whose guidance information was previously selected. The Examiner does not, for example, show that Pontual’s on-screen display—presented when the user selects a channel change—is also the program guide used to select the channel. Nor does the Examiner show that selection of a channel change results in a determination that the selected channel’s video content is incompatible with the program guide. As noted above, Pontual discloses these two on-screen displays as separate examples. Selection of a channel in a program guide on-screen display that leads to a different on-screen display being displayed is not enough to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. The Examiner also does not show that Pontual converts the selected channel’s video content to the same format as a previously selected channel’s video content. Rather, we determine that Pontual teaches Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 7 rendering a two-dimensional version of a background that would otherwise be displayed as three-dimensional (Pontual ¶ 90), but Pontual does not teach or suggest that such rendering represents the conversion of a selected channel’s video content to the same format as another channel’s video content. We also determine that Pontual’s conversion of the on-screen display to a format compatible with the background also does not teach or suggest converting a selected channel’s video content to another format. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings and analysis do not show that Pontual teaches or suggests disputed limitations [1]–[3]. Furthermore, the Examiner’s findings and analysis also do not show that Jung, Yoshida, Divelbiss, or Oota cures the noted deficiencies of Pontual. In particular, although the Examiner cites to Jung for several teachings (Final Act. 7–8), we are unable to ascertain how the cited disclosures teach or suggest the disputed recitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejections of illustrative claim 1, and claims 2–21, which have similar recitations. Appeal 2020-001033 Application 15/211,541 8 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8, 10–16, 18, 20, 21 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida 1–6, 8, 10–16, 18, 20, 21 7, 17 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida, Divelbiss 7, 17 9, 19 103(a) Pontual, Jung, Yoshida, Oota 9, 19 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation