null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2019

14935791 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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.
14/935,791 11/09/2015 Martin R. Picco HRMC.P928CON 4716
102107 7590 10/25/2019
Brokaw Patent Law, PC
101 Church Street, Suite 50
Los Gatos, CA 95030
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2019 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):
amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com
chris@brokawpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARTIN R. PICCO, NOAM KOREN,
RAZ NITZAN, GUO FENG HUANG, and ILAN BEN-ZEEV
____________________

Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BETH Z. SHAW, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.

YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 32–51.1 (Final Act. 5 (Final Office Action, mailed
August 1, 2017, “Final Act.”).) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Harmonic, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, Appellant’s invention “relates to
methods and systems for browsing video assets such as video-on-demand
videos and internet videos.” (Spec., Abstract (Specification filed November
9, 2015, “Spec.”).) Claim 32 is illustrative, and is reproduced below (with
minor reformatting):
32. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage
mediums storing one or more sequences of instructions for
playing video content on a user's client device in a video-
on-demand system, the video content including a first
collection of video segments, the video segments having a
predefined default sequence in the first collection, wherein
execution of the one or more sequences by one or more
processors cause:
establishing a streaming video session according to
a session-oriented protocol for streaming video
from head-end equipment;
receiving from head-end equipment a script
executable by the client device, the script operable
to transmit codes toward the head-end equipment in
response to and indicative of user selection among
navigational choices;
receiving transmission of video segments in the first
collection in accordance with the default sequence
for the first collection;
in response to detection during the streaming video
session of user selection of a selected one of the
segments in the first collection, transmitting toward
the headend equipment a code indicated by the
script that identifies the selected segment without
tearing down the streaming video session; and
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

3
subsequently, before tearing down the streaming
video session, receiving transmission of the selected
segment.

Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Einarsson et al.
(“Einarsson”) US 2008/0109853 A1 May 8, 2008

Claims 32–40 and 42–50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Einarsson. (See Final Act. 5–9.)
Claims 41 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Einarsson. (See Final Act. 10.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a).
With respect to independent claim 32, the Examiner finds that
Einarsson discloses the limitations of this claim. (Final Act. 5–6.)
Specifically, according to the Examiner, Einarsson discloses “receiving from
head-end equipment a script executable by the client device, the script
operable to transmit codes toward the head-end equipment in response to
and indicative of user selection among navigational choices” of claim 32.
(Final Act. 6.) According to the Examiner, paragraphs “41, 90, 124–127 [of
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

4
Einarsson] describe[] 200 OK message responsive to the user request for
media, [and the] applicant’s specification in [paragraphs] 48 and 52
describes navigation choices as pressing an OK button and/or the selection
of content).” (Id.) Appellant contends that the paragraphs cited by the
Examiner “lack any mention of an executable script sent to a client device,
let alone ‘receiving from head-end equipment a script executable by the
client device, the script operable to transmit codes toward the head-end
equipment in response to and indicative of user selection among
navigational choices.’” (App. Br. 14.) Specifically, according to Appellant,
“an executable script cannot be analogous to a mere set of non-executable
information or a non-executable instruction, such as the 200 OK message of
Einarsson.” (Id. at 17.)
The Examiner explains that the Office’s “interpretation of Einnarson’s
200 OK message as ‘a script executable by the client device’ is both
reasonable and consistent with applicant’s specification.” (Ans. 9.)
According to the Examiner, the Specification “does not define ‘a script,’ but
it does describe scripts in exemplary terms” and “states that they may ‘be
very simple’ such as [] ‘actions for all four directional navigational buttons
as well as for the OK button;’” therefore, “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of an executable script is an instruction that causes another
action.” (Id. at. 9–11.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and find the Examiner’s
construction of “executable script” reasonable. Paragraph 83 of the
Specification states that the “scripts themselves can be very simple” and can
include pseudocode that “define actions” for “navigational buttons” and
“OK button” for the user to select. (Spec. ¶ 83.) This supports the
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

5
Examiner’s construction for “executable script” as “an instruction that
causes another action.” (Ans. 11.) Here, the 200 OK message of Einarsson
“contains all media initialization information for the requested media
content” and “an acknowledge media, informing the media server that it is
now ready for receiving the requested media data.” (Einarsson ¶¶ 41, 90;
Ans. 11.)
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 32, as well as independent claim 42, which contains the
same limitation at issue and is not argued separately. (App. Br. 22.) We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 33–41 and 43–51,
which depend from either claim 32 or 42 and are not argued separately. (Id.)

CONCLUSION

In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
32–40 and 42–50 102(e) Einarsson 32–40, 42–50
41 and 51 103(a) Einarsson 41, 51
Overall
Outcome 32–51

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32–40 and 42–50 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 41 and 51 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED