HULU, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2022

2020005797 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2022)

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. 15/926,569 03/20/2018 Yunsheng Jiang DISNP255US 1016 181343 7590 01/25/2022 Brian N. Young, Esq. Kwan & Olynick LLP c/o HULU, LLC 2000 Hearst Avenue, Suite 305 Berkeley, CA 94709 EXAMINER TEKLE, DANIEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2022 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): alundy@kwanip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com lsmith@kwanip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YUNSHENG JIANG, XIAOHUI XIE and LIANGLIANG LI Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosure is directed to determining the start time of end credits in a video delivery. Abstr.; Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 14-17; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 6. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hulu, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 2 Claim 1 is representative2 of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a set of frames from a video at a first classifier; classifying, by the computing device, the set of frames with a set of classification scores indicating a confidence that a frame contains end credit content using the first classifier, the first classifier using a first model that classifies content from the set of frames; after performing the classifying by the first classifier, performing: receiving, by the computing device, at least a portion of the set of classification scores for at least a portion of the set of frames from the first classifier; adjusting, by the computing device, a classification score in the set of classification scores for a frame to another classification score using one or more classification scores from one or more of the at least the portion of the set of frames that are considered to be neighboring frames to the frame using a second classifier, the second classifier using a second model that classifies classification scores from the first classifier and not content of the at least the portion of the set of frames that was used by the first classifier; and selecting, by the computing device, a boundary point in the set of frames between a first frame in the set of frames that is considered to not include end credit content and a second frame in the set of frames that is considered to include end credit content using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). 2 Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6-10) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of obviousness rejection of claims 1-21 on the basis of representative claim 1. Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 3 REFERENCES AND REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Cooper et al. (“Cooper”) US 7,783,106 B2 Aug. 24, 2010 Sarkar et al. (“Sarkar”) US 2011/0007366 A1 Jan. 13, 2011 Dunlop et al. (“Dunlop”) US 2013/0259390 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dunlop, Cooper, and Sarkar. Final Act. 3-9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding that Dunlop, Cooper, and Sarkar teaches the claim 1 limitation selecting, by the computing device, a boundary point in the set of frames between a first frame in the set of frames that is considered to not include end credit content and a second frame in the set of frames that is considered to include end credit content using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. (Also referred to as “disputed limitation”). Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Dunlop, Cooper, and Sarkar teaches the limitations of representative claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds Cooper teaches the disputed limitation. Id. at Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 4 5. The Examiner finds Cooper’s method is repeatedly applied using a binary classifier each time, first distinguishing boundaries from non-boundaries, and then distinguishing one type of boundary from all the others, and repeating until all types of boundaries have been considered. Id. at 5 (citing Cooper 5:55-6:23). Appellant argues Cooper does not disclose selecting a boundary point using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. Appeal Br. 6-7. According to Appellant, although Cooper may disclose distinguishing a boundary from a non-boundary, Cooper does not disclose distinguishing a boundary from a non-boundary using the classification score that is replaced with the adjusted classification score. Id. (citing Cooper 6:12-14). Regarding the Examiner’s finding that Cooper discloses distinguishing one type of boundary from all others, and repeating until all types of boundaries have been considered, Appellant argues the Examiner does not establish where in Cooper repeatedly applying the method includes using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. Id. at 7. According to Appellant Although Cooper discloses the method is repeatedly applied using the binary classifier each time (see Cooper, col. 6, line 17), the rejection does not describe how the classification is repeatedly performed. Rather, all that Cooper discloses is that the repeated performance distinguishes from one type of boundary from all others. See Cooper, col. 6, lines 19-20. However, Cooper does not include any disclosure that the classification score is being replaced with the adjusted classification score when distinguishing the one type of boundary. Accordingly, the Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 5 rejection has erred the omission of essential elements required to establish a prima facie rejection in Cooper. Id. at 7. Appellant additionally argues, although uncertain from the Final Office Action, if the adjustment is determined to be distinguishing one type of boundary from another, Cooper does not disclose using an adjusted classification score that is for the frame. Id. According to Appellant, as claimed, the classification score is for a frame and the Cooper use of the boundary and classifying the type of boundary does not use a classification score for a frame. Id. Appellant argues Cooper is using a classification of a boundary from non-boundary, which is not a classification score for a frame. Id. Appellant argues the classification of a boundary does not disclose using an adjusted classification score that is for the frame. Id. Rather, according to Appellant, Cooper is using the decision of distinguishing a boundary from a non-boundary. In the Answer, the Examiner provides further explanation of the findings, including Cooper: The office action provide a focus point with a highlight part of the paragraph which corresponds to each claim limitation, however this should not misunderstood for claim anticipation focus on the highlight points only. The key elements can be found within the cited paragraph or outside the cited paragraph. Further, the rejection separates into three art of Dunlop, Cooper and Sarkar. The reason to combine the three references was to implement or add the missing part of the primary reference by another art, in this case first with art of Sarkar and second with art of Cooper. The method of Dunlop teaches classifying video data based classification score; the method Sarkar teaches adjusting the first classification; and the method of Cooper teaches boundary point between video data. Appellant argument in regards to Co[o]per art [....... adjusted classification score .. ], Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 6 however this limitation is already consider under Sarkar. Also Co[o]per teaches supervised classifier is used to classify the data subset as cut-boundary or non-boundary as outlined on the final office action and as outlined above. Therefore, the examiner stands with the rejection in regards appellant argument 1, since appellant argument appears the specific elements of the claim [classification score, adjusting the first classification and defining boundary point] by attacking separately while the rejection is a combined of three reference. Ans. 10-11. In the Reply Brief, regarding Cooper, Appellant argues the Answer states the key elements can be found within the cited paragraph or outside the cited paragraph, but the Answer cites no other paragraphs in Cooper. Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 10). Regarding the Examiner’s statement that Appellant’s argument appears to attack the specific elements of the claim separately while the rejection is a combination of the three references of Dunlop, Cooper, and Sarkar, Appellant argues the Final Office Action states Dunlop and Sarkar fail to disclose, but Cooper discloses: selecting, by the computing device, a boundary point in the set of frames between a first frame in the set of frames that is considered to not include end credit content and a second frame in the set of frames that is considered to include end credit content using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. Id. at 2. According to Appellant, if Dunlop and Sarkar fail to disclose the element, then Appellant is not attacking the rejection separately by showing Cooper does not disclose the element. Id. Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 7 Regarding the Examiner’s finding in the Answer that Sarkar discloses adjusting the classification score and Cooper teaches a boundary point between the video data, Appellant argues However, the claim language includes more than classifying data as a cut-boundary or non-boundary as stated in the Examiner's Answer. See Examiner's Answer, pg. 11. Claim 1 recites selecting a boundary point ... using the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score. Even if Sarkar discloses adjusting a classification score, Sarkar does not disclose replacing a classification score with an adjusted classification score to select a boundary point. The Examiner's Answer has not addressed this argument on pages 6-7 in the Appeal Brief. These arguments in the Appeal Brief stated "[w]hen first distinguishing a boundary from a non-boundary, Cooper does not disclose using the classification score that is replaced with the adjusted classification score." The Appeal Brief also states "[a]lthough Cooper discloses the method is repeatedly applied using the binary classifier each time (see Cooper, col. 6, line 17), the rejection does not describe how the classification is repeatedly performed. Rather, all that Cooper discloses is that the repeated performance distinguishes from one type of boundary from all others. See Cooper, col. 6, lines 19-20. However, Sarkar and Cooper do not include any disclosure that the classification score is being replaced with the adjusted classification score when distinguishing the one type of boundary.[] It appears the only arguments the Examiner's Answer offers is the Appeal Brief attacks the references separately and the Examiner stands with the Final rejection. As stated above and in the Appeal Brief, the Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer have not established a prima facie rejection. Id. at 2-3. On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to support the finding Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 8 that Cooper teaches performing the disputed limitation. Appellant’s arguments are reasonable and are not fully addressed by the Examiner. Although Cooper teaches determining boundaries, the Examiner does not sufficiently identify teaching in Cooper in which the boundaries are selected as recited as set forth in the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner does not sufficiently identify Cooper teaching using “the at least the portion of the set of classification scores with the classification score being replaced with the adjusted classification score.” Nor does the Examiner sufficiently identify Cooper teaching that the classification score is directed to a frame. Regarding Sarkar, even if Sarkar discloses adjusting a classification score, Sarkar does not disclose replacing a classification score with an adjusted classification score to select a boundary point. To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for the rejection. “[T]he [E]xaminer bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to conclude the Examiner errs in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2-21, as obvious. In view of the above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2-21. Appeal 2020-005797 Application 15/926,569 9 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we reverse the obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2-21. Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejections made, we do not address additional arguments raised by Appellant. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-21 103 Dunlop, Cooper, Sarker 1-21 Overall Outcome 1-21 REVERSED