Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2017

13512708 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2017)

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.
13/512,708 06/08/2012 Yan Chen CN920090053US1_8150-0199 1016
52021 7590 01/17/2017
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
DANG, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2017 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAN CHEN, JIAN HUI HE, ZHI HUA PAN,
ZHONG SU, and XIAOXUN ZHANG
Appeal 2016-001473
Application 13/512,70s1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—4 and 6—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “identifying popular segments of a network
video.” Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is IBM Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001473
Application 13/512,708
1. A method for identifying popular segments of a network video
comprising:
receiving video player operation information for a
plurality of video players operated by users accessing the
network video;
evaluating, using a processor, a popularity measure for a
segment of the network-video using the received operation
information so as to identify popular segments of the network
video, wherein the network video comprises a plurality of video
segments, and the video player operation information for a
particular video player regards one or more operations
performed by the video player.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12, 13, 16—18, 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Adachi (US
2007/0280636 Al; Dec. 6, 2007) and Logan et al. (US 2003/0093790 Al;
May 15, 2003). Final Act. 8.
Claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Adachi, Logan, and Hirai (US
2005/0163481 Al; July 28, 2005). Final Act. 12.
Claims 9-11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Adachi, Logan, and Ali et al. (US
2002/0199186 Al; Dec. 26, 2002). Final Act. 14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Adachi and
Logan teaches or suggests “evaluating ... a popularity measure for a
segment of the network-video using the received operation information so as
to identity popular segments of the network video, wherein the network
video comprises a plurality of video segments, and the video player
2
Appeal 2016-001473
Application 13/512,708
operation information for a particular video player regards one or more
operations performed by the video player,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Adachi and
Logan teaches or suggests “evaluating the popularity measure for each of the
plurality of video segments using a predetermined policy defining popularity
indicators for the network video,” as recited in claim 2?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6—8, 12, 16—18, 20, 24, and 25
Claim 1 recites “evaluating ... a popularity measure for a segment of
the network-video using the received operation information so as to identity
popular segments of the network video, wherein the network video
comprises a plurality of video segments, and the video player operation
information for a particular video player regards one or more operations
performed by the video player.”
The Examiner relies on the combination of Adachi and Logan for
teaching this limitation, final Act. 8—9. Appellants contend Adachi teaches
rating whole videos (not “segments”) based on a user’s subjective evaluation
(not “video player operation information”). App. Br. 9, 14. Appellants
further contend “[wjhile Logan may teach rating or classifying a segment of
programming, this is accomplished by user-provided metadata — not using
video player operation information.” Id. at 12. According to Appellants,
“video player operation information” instead includes the operations
discussed in the Specification: “(i) scanning forward, (ii) scan backward,
(iii) fast forward, (iv) rewind, and (v) pause.” Id. at 18 (citing Spec. 119).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, first, Appellants’
arguments, which contend that neither Logan nor Adachi teaches the entire
3
Appeal 2016-001473
Application 13/512,708
invention as claimed, are not commensurate with the ground of rejection
articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on the combination of
Logan and Adachi to teach the limitation. See Final Act. 8—9. “[0]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Second, “although the specification often describes very specific
embodiments of the invention, we [the Federal Circuit] have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v.
AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc). Here, claim 1
requires that the video player operation information “regards one or more
operations performed by the video player,” but does not limit the
“operations” to those specifically mentioned in the Specification. In fact,
dependent claim 3, which ultimately depends from claim 1, recites “the
operations comprise at least one of a scan forward operation, a scan
backward operation, a fast forward operation, a fast backward operation, a
rewind operation and a pause operation.” As the Federal Circuit has said,
“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise
to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Thus, “video player
operation information” is not limited to the specific operations identified by
Appellants in paragraph 19 of the Specification. We agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “video player
operation information” includes information about other operations within a
video player, such as a user rating a video (or video segment) being watched
in a video player or tracking the number of times a video (or video segment)
4
Appeal 2016-001473
Application 13/512,708
was played in a video player. Ans. 11 (citing Logan || 118—119, 130, 139),
14 (citing Adachi 136).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 6—8, 12,
16—18, 20, 24, and 25, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 9, 23; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2, 13, and 21
Claim 2 recites “evaluating the popularity measure for each of the
plurality of video segments using a predetermined policy defining popularity
indicators for the network video.”
Appellants argue “as already noted above [for claim 1], the manner in
which individual segments are evaluated by Logan involve user-provided
metadata, which does not correspond to the claimed invention.” App. Br.
20; Reply Br. 6. This relies on the same arguments as claim 1, and we are
not persuaded for the same reasons. Thus, Appellants have not sufficiently
shown any error in the Examiner’s proposed combination. Ans. 17—18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and
claims 13 and 21, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons.
See App. Br. 9, 21; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1^4 and 6—25.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5