Jamie Batmanglidj et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14730869 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/730,869 06/04/2015 Jamie Batmanglidj 26141.0208U1 6038
16000 7590 09/30/2019
Comcast
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
PARRA, OMAR S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMIE BATMANGLIDJ, NEILL KIPP,
JUSTIN RIGGERT, and JOSEPH KIOK1
____________

Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 and 8–21. Claim 7 has been
canceled. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. (“Appellant”) is the applicant as
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 4, 2015; Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Jan. 22, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
July 16, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) mailed July 13, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 14, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

2
Appellant’s Invention
The invention relates to buffering video streams, separating the
buffered video into content segments, and extracting text data, such as
closed caption information, from the content segments. See Abstract; Spec.
¶¶ 1–5.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A method comprising:
buffering content from a plurality of linear video streams
into a buffer as a plurality of content segments, wherein each of
the plurality of content segments is associated with a respective
time index;
extracting text data from the plurality of content
segments in the buffer, wherein the text data comprises closed
captioning data;
associating one or more of the plurality of content
segments with one or more portions of the extracted text data
based on the respective time index of each of the plurality of
text segments;
identifying one or more of the plurality of content
segments in response to a query comprising a text string and a
time range within a duration of the plurality of content
segments; and
providing an interface facilitating a selection from one or
more of the plurality of linear video streams corresponding to
the identified one or more of the plurality of content segments
responsive to the query.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claim App.).
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

3
Rejections on Appeal3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Menard et al. (US 6,061,056; issued May
9, 2000) (“Menard”) and Pratt et al. (US 2012/0249474 A1; published Oct.
4, 2012) (“Pratt”), and Ruiz-Velasco et al. (US 2010/0162313 A1; published
June 24, 2010) (“Ruiz-Velasco”). See Final Act. 4–9.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Mohr (US 7,712,117
B2; issued May 4, 2010). See Final Act. 10.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Logan et al. (US
2003/0093790 A1; published May 15, 2003) (“Logan”). See Final Act. 10–
11.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Chen et al. (US
2016/0014482 A1; published Jan. 14, 2016 (filed July 13, 2015, claiming
benefit of US 62/024,422, filed July 14, 2014)) (“Chen”). See Final Act.
11–12.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Birnbaum et al. (US
2016/0149956 A1; published May 26, 2016 (filed Nov. 20, 2015, claiming

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections. Because the present application has an effective filing
date (June 4, 2015) later than the AIA’s effective date for applications
(March 16, 2013), this decision refers to the AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

4
benefit of US 62/082,720, filed Nov. 21, 2014)) (“Birnbaum”). See Final
Act. 12–13.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Menard and Ruiz-Velasco
collectively would have taught or suggested “providing an interface
facilitating a selection from one or more of the plurality of linear video
streams corresponding to the identified one or more of the plurality of
content segments responsive to the query,” where the query comprises “a
text string and a time range within a duration of the plurality of content
segments,” within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 8 and 16?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 8
and 16, as well as dependent claims 2–6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19) as being
obvious in view of Menard and Ruiz-Velasco based on claim 1. See Final
Act. 4–9; Ans. 11–16. The Examiner cites Menard as teaching most aspects
of the claim, including: (1) “a query comprising a text string and a time
range within a duration of the plurality of content segments” (Final Act. 5)
and (2) “an interface facilitating a selection from one or more of the plurality
of live video streams corresponding to the identified one or more of the
plurality of content segments responsive to the query” (Final Act. 5), and
relies on Ruiz-Velasco to teach “a system that receives live content and/or
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

5
recorded content that divides the content in segments for a chapter
navigation while the content is being received in real-time” (Final Act. 6).
See Final Act. 4–9; Ans. 11–16. (citing Menard, col. 9, ll. 13–28; Figs. 12
and 13; Ruiz-Velasco Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 34).
Appellant contends that Menard and Ruiz-Velasco do not teach the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 2.
Specifically, Appellant contends that “the cited portions of Menard are silent
as to any ‘selection from one or more of the plurality of linear video
streams’” (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)) and “Menard does not . . .
relate at all to searching and presenting linear video streams, and . . . Ruiz-
Velasco does not relate in any way to extracting text from video to perform a
search of linear video streams” (Appeal Br. 7(emphasis omitted)). See
Appeal Br. 5–8.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that Menard and Ruiz-Velasco
(either alone or in combination with one another) do not teach or suggest the
query (searching) aspect of the disputed limitations—“a query comprising a
text string and a time range within a duration of the plurality of content
segments” (claim 1). See Appeal Br. 5–8.
Menard generally describes an interface (see Fig. 13), and also
generally describes a text query and video segment selection (see col. 7, ll.
30–38; Fig. 7). Although Menard describes a text query and an interface,
the Examiner cited portions of Menard do not describe the query including a
time component (a time range within a duration of the plurality of content
segments), or making a selection of a video stream responsive to such a
query.
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

6
The Examiner, in the Examiner’s Answer, explains that “Menard
teaches a system that allows users to query and search video streams . . . to
identify portions that include queried keywords.” Ans. 11 (citing col. 7, ll.
27–38; col. 9, ll. 13–28; Figs. 12 and 13). The cited portions of Menard,
however, do not suggest a query including a time range and do not suggest
associating stored video segments with corresponding video streams (to be
selected).
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the combination of
Menard and Ruiz-Velasco at least suggests the disputed query aspect of
Appellant’s claim and subsequent selection of a linear video stream
corresponding to an identified content segment that is identified responsive
to the query. Without further explanation, we are left to speculate as to how
Menard (in combination with Ruiz-Velasco) describes the disputed features
of Appellant’s claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record to find that the
Examiner erred in concluding Menard and Ruiz-Velasco teach the query and
selection features of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 16
include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2–6, 9, 12,
13, 15, 18, and 19 depend from and stand with claims 1, 8, and 16,
respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 21
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 10 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Mohr. See Final Act. 10.
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 11 as being unpatentable over
Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and Logan. See Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner
Appeal 2018-007533
Application 14/730,869

7
rejects dependent claims 14 and 20 as being unpatentable over Menard,
Ruiz-Velasco, and Chen. See Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner rejects
dependent claim 21 as being unpatentable over Menard, Ruiz-Velasco, and
Birnbaum. See Final Act. 12–13.
The Examiner has not established on this record that the additionally
cited Mohr, Logan, Chen, and Birnbaum references overcome or cure the
aforementioned deficiency of Menard and Ruiz-Velasco. Dependent claims
10, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 21 depend from claims 8 and 16, respectively.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 21for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–6
and 8–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6 and 8–21.

REVERSED