Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12057073 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/057,073 03/27/2008
109673 7590 05/02/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chia-Heng Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
250318-1920 1670
EXAMINER
SHAYANFAR, ALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIA-HENG CHEN
Appeal2014-003918
Application 12/057 ,073
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TTT""ti. T"T T A. TT ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1
~ VAl\._, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-003918
Application 12/057,073
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a "system and a method for
playing large-capacity multimedia video data of a scheduled event with an
important blocking effect" (Spec. 1 :5-9).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (argued limitations emphasized).
1. A video playing method, for playing multimedia video
data including at least one scheduled event, the method
comprising the steps of:
receiving a first playing position and a second playing
position with respect to the multimedia video data;
determining whether a scheduled event exists in the
multimedia video data between the first playing position and
the second playing position, wherein the scheduled event is
used to be executed to peiform a playback effect;
determining by a processing unit if the scheduled event
has a blocking effect, wherein if the scheduled event has the
blocking effect, a playback effect for an entirety of the
multimedia video data is restricted if the scheduled event
having the blocking effect is unexecuted;
jumping to the scheduled event from the first playing
position if the scheduled event has the blocking effect;
executing by the processing unit the scheduled event;
and
jumping to the second playing position to play the
multimedia video data after the blocking effect of the scheduled
event is executed.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Poslinski (US 2006/0013557 Al; Jan. 19, 2006) in view
of Logan (US 2008/0092168 Al; Apr. 17, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-003918
Application 12/057,073
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner
erred in finding Poslinski teaches or suggests a scheduled event is executed
to perform a playback effect (App. Br. 6-9) and Logan teaches or suggests
"if the scheduled event has the blocking effect, a playback effect for an
entirety of the multimedia video data is restricted ![the scheduled event
having the blocking effect is unexecuted" (App. Br. 9).
With respect to Poslinski, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings as our own (Ans. 3--4). Particularly, we agree, Poslinski teaches a
scheduled event can be a commercial embedded in a video clip and the
commercial can be executed to perform a trick mode/playback effect (Ans.
3, citing Poslinski i-f 140). We further agree Appellant is arguing limitations
not found in the claims (Ans. 4).
With respect to Logan, the Examiner finds Logan's paragraph 260
teaches "the advertising could also be placed in a 'skip protection' zone ...
an attempt to skip the advertising ... would cause the player to skip to the
beginning of the next segment, thus preventing the user from playing the
content without first listening to the leading advertising segment" (Ans. 5).
Thus, in Logan, "the user is allowed to watch the video clip if the trick
mode for showing [a] commercial is not enabled [scheduled event having
the blocking effect is unexecuted]" (id.).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs as Logan discloses any attempt
to skip the advertisement will be ignored (App. Br. 10). Appellant asserts it
is unclear how Logan discloses if a scheduled event has a blocking effect,
restricting a playback effect for an entirety of the multimedia video data if
the scheduled event having the blocking effect is unexecuted, as claimed
3
Appeal2014-003918
Application 12/057,073
(id.) That is, Logan teaches the opposite of restricting effects from playing
if the blocking effect is unexecuted, by ignoring attempts to bypass the ad
and does not disclose restricting the effect for the entirety of the video data
(Logan i-f 260). Thus, Logan does not teach or suggest when a scheduled
event is unexecuted the playback effect for the entirety of the event is
unexecuted (App. Br. 10). We agree.
Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and dependent claims 2-8 argued
therewith, as obvious over the combination of Poslinski and Logan.
Appellant contends the Examiner also erred in rejecting independent
claim 9 and dependent claims 10-12 (App. Br. 11). Appellant contends
Poslinski fails to suggest a "scheduled event is used to be executed to
perform a playback effect" (App. Br. 11-12). Appellant disagrees with the
Examiner's interpretation of the term "scheduled event." Appellant
contends commercials are not scheduled events and the video content of
Poslinski decodes and plays back but does not execute (App. Br. 8, 11, 14).
As noted about with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant's "scheduled event" encompasses Poslinski's commercials (see
also Ans. 7-8; Final Act. 8-12). We also agree with the Examiner that
Poslinski teaches "executing" the commercial within the meaning of claim
9. See Ans. 7-8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12.
With respect to independent claim 13, this claim contains
substantially the same limitations as those set forth above with respect to
claim 9. As substantially the same arguments were provided by Appellant
(App. Br. 13-15; Poslinski's commercials are not the same as a scheduling
4
Appeal2014-003918
Application 12/057,073
event), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and dependent
claims 14--18.
With respect to independent claim 19, this claim contains
substantially the same limitations as those set forth and argued in claim 1 (if
the scheduled event has the blocking effect, a playback effect for an entirety
of the multimedia video data is restricted if the scheduled event having the
blocking effect is unexecuted) (App. Br. 15-19). Thus, for the reasons set
forth above with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 19 or claims 20-23 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 19-23 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5