Remi Houdaille et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 202013677387 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020) 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. 13/677,387 11/15/2012 Remi Houdaille 2011P00125 US 9665 119110 7590 05/04/2020 Invention Mine IDC 216 S. Jefferson Suite 102 Chicago, IL 60661 EXAMINER FLYNN, RANDY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 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): bob@inventionmine.com docket@inventionmine.com uspto@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte REMI HOUDAILLE and HELMUT BURKLIN1 ___________ Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1−8 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 16. 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(a). Appellant identifies Thomson Licensing DTV, as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 2 Introduction According to Appellant, “The invention is related to find alternate versions of different content and to optimize switching between these alternate versions” wherein the different versions of content could be “for example: an uncensored version and a censored version, a cinema version and a TV-series adaptation version of a same digital content, a version with inserted publicity and a version without, a trailer version and a cinema version, different language-dubbed versions.” Specification 1−2; Abstract. Representative Claim 1. A method of smooth switching between digital content versions without sequence jumps, wherein the method is implemented by a digital content receiver device, said method comprising: rendering a first digital content version of said digital content at a first rendering point related to a first timeline of said first digital content version; transmitting a first request to seek a sequence of at least one alternate digital content version of said digital content following the sequence of the first digital content version at said first rendering point, said request comprising information representative of said first rendering point relative to said first timeline in said first digital content version and an identifier of said first digital content version; receiving, in response to said first request, an identifier of said at least one alternate digital content version and associated information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version for smoothly following the first digital content version at said first rendering point; Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 3 transmitting a second request to receive at least one component of an alternate digital content version selected from among said at least one alternate digital content version of which an identifier is received in response to the first request, said request comprising an identifier of said selected alternate digital content version and associated information representative of said second rendering point; and smooth continued rendering of said digital content, whereby said at least one component of said selected alternate digital content version is rendered at said second rendering point according to said second timeline in replacement of rendering at least one component of said first digital content version at said first rendering point related to said first timeline, said second rendering point smoothly following the first digital content version at said first rendering point. References Name Reference Date Amir et al. US 2002/0140719 A1 October 3, 2002 Uyttendaele et al. US 2004/0239699 A1 December 2, 2004 Bailey et al. US 2007/0220583 A1 September 20, 2007 Eide et al. US 2008/0209480 A1 August 28, 2008 Sansom et al. WO 2011/030129 A2 March 17, 2011 Hunt US 2012/0139847 A1 June 7, 2012 Subramanian et al. US 8,737,679 May 27, 2014 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6−8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt and Amir. Final Action 3−15. Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 4 Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt, Amir and Eide. Final Action 16−17. Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt, Amir and Subramanian. Final Action 18. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 1, 2017), the Final Action (mailed July 6, 2017) and the Answer (mailed March 5, 2018), for the respective details. Appellant states, “Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of smooth switching between digital content versions without sequence jumps, wherein the method is implemented by a digital content receiver device, described, for example, at page 1 lines 19-27 and page 5 line 18 - page 6 line 3 [of the Specification].” Appeal Brief 3. Appellant contends: Sansom does not disclose or suggest that the information representative of the first rendering point relative to the first time line is transmitted by the claimed digital content receiver device, which is a logical consequence of the Examiner’s admitted non- disclosure by Sansom of the information representative of the first rendering point relative to the first time line. Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner determines Sansom does not “explicitly disclose” “information representative of said first rendering point relative to said first Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 5 timeline” and “associated information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version for smoothly following the first digital content version at said first rendering point.” Answer 5−6. Appellant further contends: [G]iven that none of the cited references [Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt and Amir] teaches or suggests the features of transmitting information representative of the first rendering point relative to the first timeline and receiving information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in the at least one alternate digital content version as recited in pending claim 1, Appellants respectfully submit that even if one skilled in the art evaluating the combination of the cited references would be motivated to combine the references, the combined arrangement still fails to disclose or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. Appeal Brief 14−15 (Emphasis added). The Examiner determines the combination of Sansom and Bailey does not “explicitly disclose” “information representative of said first rendering point relative to said first timeline” and “information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version.” Answer 8. The Examiner further determines the combination of Sansom, Bailey and Uttendaele does not “explicitly disclose” “information representative of said first rendering point relative to said first timeline” and “information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version.” Answer 10. The Examiner finds Hunt discloses “information representative of said first rendering point relative to said first timeline” and “information Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 6 representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version.” Answer 11; see Hunt ¶¶45−47. Hunt’s Figure 4E is reproduced below: Figure 4E “illustrates the context-specific user interface 445 including a parallel timeline bar.” Hunt ¶47. Hunt discloses in paragraph 45: When the operational context of the CE [consumer electronic] device 115 is playback [of] digital video and audio content, an alternative to including transport controls (Play, Stop, Pause, FF, RW, Next, Prev) in the context-specific user interface 445 is to include graphical elements for a timeline bar 440 on the display device 120, with a “now” icon 455 representing the current display point. It is noted that paragraph 45 refers to Hunt’s Figure 4D, however the elements in Figure 4E are referenced in paragraph 45 because Figure 4E is a Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 7 progression of Figure 4D. See Hunt ¶¶45−47. Hunt discloses in paragraph 47: FIG. 4E illustrates the context-specific user interface 445 including a parallel timeline bar, according to one embodiment of the present invention. Alternative angle scenes or variations may be displayed in the user interface 445 as parallel time line bars to the time line bar 440. A parallel timeline bar 460 branches and rejoins the timeline bar 440 to represent a time region for which different angle scenes of the digital video and audio content are available. The parallel timeline bar 460 may include content such as alternative endings, or even director’s and actors’ commentary soundtracks. The Examiner finds Hunt discloses: [I]nformation representative of said first rendering point relative to said first timeline (Now icon representative of the current rendering point of the content; Fig. 4E, element 455, and pages 4-5, paragraphs 45-46, and wherein this is related to a first timeline of a first version; pages 4-5, paragraphs 45-46, and Fig. 4E, element 440); [I]nformation representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in said at least one alternate digital content version (time region, i.e. information about a different rendering point, indicated by branch from main timeline; page 5, paragraph 47, and wherein is for a second timeline of a different version of the content, and further, time region may be of specific times parallel to the main timeline and for certain durations, i.e. 10 minutes, such that upon clicking on the parallel timeline at a certain point in one of these regions, i.e. wherein the clicking the timeline at a certain point may also be considered further defining the information for the second rendering point, will allow the alternate content to be shown; Fig. 4E, element 460, and page 5, paragraph 47-48). Answer 11. The Examiner concludes: Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 8 [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the prior art of Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, and Hunt by allowing different timelines to be used for versions of content, in order to provide a system and device that can be used to more intuitively control how content is viewed when interacting with the content via a consumer electronic device (Hunt; page 1, paragraph 6). Answer 12. Appellant argues, “It appears from paragraph [0048], that a user clicking on the parallel timeline bar during currently playing of a ‘primary’ version of a movie, will result in the CE device outputting the other (director’s commentary) version of the digital video.” Appeal Brief 13. Hunt’s paragraph 48 is reproduced in its entirety below: By way of example, imagine a DVD with a director’s commentary, 10 minutes of alternative angle shots of a key scene, and a different ending. A user may touch the touchpad 105 to display the timeline bar 440 corresponding to the currently playing version of the movie. The parallel timeline bar 460 above the parallel timeline bar 440 may represent the program with director’s commentary. Clicking on the timeline bar 460 controls the CE device 110 to output the director’s commentary version of the digital video and audio content for display on the display device 120. Two seconds before up to ten seconds after the beginning of a section of the timeline bar 440 with an alternative scene angle, the parallel timeline bar 460 may fade in automatically, showing the parallel timeline bar 460 branching off the primary timeline bar 440. Clicking on the parallel timeline bar 460 may select an alternative scene angle and control the CE device 110 to output the alternative scene angle of the digital video and audio content for display on the display device 120. Clicking back on the primary timeline bar 440 controls the CE device 110 to output the primary scene angle of the digital video and audio content for display on the display device 120. Similarly, at any point along the primary timeline bar 440 where an alternative ending is possible, a parallel timeline bar may fade Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 9 into the context-specific user interface 445 so that the user can select the alternative ending for display. Appellant argues, “It seems that the other video is started from its beginning, whenever the user clicks on the parallel time bar, independently of the advancement of the ‘primary’ version. Clicking back on the primary timeline bar controls the CE device to output the primary scene angle of the digital video.” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant concludes: There is thus no smooth following of an alternate content version at a second rendering point of a first content version at a first rendering point. Consequently, and as can be expected, there is thus also no disclosure or suggestion of transmitting information representative of such first rendering point and receiving in response information representative of a second rendering point in the alternate content version for smoothly following the first content version at the first rendering point. Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Hunt does not support Appellant’s assertion that the other video is independent from the advancement of the primary video. See Appeal Brief 13; Hunt ¶48. Hunt discloses in Figure 4E, positioning the cursor 420 at a specific time on the Timeline Bar 440 and having the alternative or other video, Parallel Timeline Bar 460, correspond to the position and/or advancement of the cursor. Claim 1 recites “smooth continued rendering of said digital content” and “said second rendering point smoothly following the first digital content version at said first rendering point.” Hunt discloses the second rending point follows the first rendering point and does not indicate any disruption. See Hunt ¶¶45−47; see also Hunt Figure 4E. Appellant does not cite to any specific teaching in Hunt that would lead an artisan to believe the rendering Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 10 points did not follow smoothly as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument without supporting evidence is conclusory, and, therefore, unpersuasive. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney argument is not the kind of factual evidence required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence”). Appellant further argues, “there is thus also no disclosure or suggestion of transmitting information representative of such first rendering point and receiving in response information representative of a second rendering point in the alternate content version for smoothly following the first content version at the first rendering point.” Appeal Brief 13 (citing Hunt ¶48). Hunt uses a DVD as an example of a CE Device. See Hunt ¶48. Hunt further disclose other components, such as USB or other port connections, CD drives, film recordings devices and the like, could be accessed via the CE device along with the DVD drive. See Hunt ¶32. Hunt also teaches: CE device 115 can send messages and receive data, including digital audio and video data and program code, through the network(s) and network link 218. The received code may be executed by CPU 202 as it is received, and/or stored in system disk 214, or other non-volatile storage for later execution. The received digital audio and video data may be displayed by display device 120 under the control of the CPU 202. Hunt ¶35. [T]he CE device 115 determines an operational context based on a function being performed by the CE device 115. The operational context may depend on the content displayed on the display device 120. For example when a user views a webpage Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 11 with a video or the CE device 115 is playing a video, the operational context is video playback. When a DVD is inserted into the CE device 115 the operational context is the DVD controls. Hunt ¶38 (Emphasis added). One advantage of the disclosed technique is that the context- specific user interface includes the controls that are relevant to the operational context of the CE device 115. Using a pointer device, such as the cursor that is controlled by user gestures provides an intuitive mechanism for controlling the CE device 115. Hunt ¶52. Another advantage of a pointing interface, such as that provided by a cursor having a position controlled by the remote controller 110, is the ability to navigate a dense, rich set of options and alternatives, in a manner similar to a website. Imagine 100,000 movie titles available to play on a streaming Internet movie player. The ability to move the cursor in any direction by applying a gesture to the touchpad 115 provides the user with an intuitive interface to browse, choose, select categories, pick and choose rich meta-content. Hunt ¶53 (Emphasis added). We do not find Appellant’s argument, “there is thus also no disclosure or suggestion of transmitting information representative of such first rendering point and receiving in response information representative of a second rendering point in the alternate content version for smoothly following the first content version at the first rendering point” persuasive because Hunt discloses both digital audio and video data could accessed by the CE device via a network link 218 and used for playing movie titles on a streaming Internet movie player. Appeal Brief 13; see Hunt ¶¶ 33−35, 53. “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 12 precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we find in order to view alternate digital content when streaming a movie, the information representing the first and second rendering points would have to be transmitted. See Hunt ¶¶ 33−35, 53. Appellant contends: The claimed invention by contrast comprises features of transmitting information representative of the first rendering point relative to the first timeline and receiving information representative of a second rendering point relative to a second timeline in the at least one alternate digital content version. At least these features of claim 1 are thus not disclosed by Sansom in view of Bailey in view of Uyttendaele in view of Hunt and in further view of Amir. Appeal Brief 14 (Emphasis added). Appellant further contends “there is no motivation by one of skill in the art to combine the 5 cited references because there is no expectation of success that the 5 references, when combined can reach all of the elements of pending claim 1.” Appeal Brief 15. That is, premised on a failure of the combination to teach all of the elements required by claim 1, Appellant reasons an artisan would not have been successful in making the claimed invention. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons including (1) for the reasons discussed above, we disagree with Appellant’s premise that the combination of references is deficient, (2) the argument conflates whether references teach all claim limitations with whether the combination is proper, and (3) a lack of evidence that there would have been no Appeal 2018-005492 Application 13/677,387 13 expectation of success, particularly in the predictable arts of digital content switching and transmission. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of 1, as well as, claims 2, 4 and 6-8, not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 15. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3 and 5, not argued separately with distinction. See Appeal Brief 15−16. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6−8 103 Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt, Amir 1, 2, 4, 6−8 3 103 Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt, Amir, Eide 3 5 103 Sansom, Bailey, Uyttendaele, Hunt, Amir, Subramanian 5 Overall Outcome 1−8 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation