Ex Parte Demoulin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2016

13727707 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131727,707 12/27/2012 24498 7590 05/03/2016 Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vincent Demoulin 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. PFl 10160 7068 EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINCENT DEMOULIN, FRANCK THUDOR, and LIONEL OISEL Appeal2014-007221 Application 13/727,707 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-14, which constitute all claims pending in the application. (App. Br. 3; Final Act. 1) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates to a method for synchronizing a first media service having an audio and video stream with a second media Appeal2014-007221 Application 13/727,707 service having at least an audio stream, such as, for example, a TV broadcast and a radio broadcast. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1 is representative. With the disputed limitation italicized, claim 1 reads as follows: 1. Method for synchronizing a first video and audio based media service having an audio and a video stream and one or several second media service( s) having at least an audio stream, wherein the audio stream of the first media service corresponds to the audio stream of second media service, wherein the method comprises the following steps: receiving the first media service; receiving at least one second media service; synchronizing the reproduction of the audio streams of the first and the second media service; and displaying a status indicator of the current synchronization state of the reproduction of the audio streams of the first and second media se1~vice, 1lvherein the status indicator ir/orms a user if the synchronization is completed, in progress, and if the synchronization has failed. REFERENCES The Examiner cites the following references for this appeal: Cameron et al. ("Cameron") Wood et al. ("Wood") Meek et al. ("Meek") US 2007/0153897 Al US 8,233,089 B2 US 8,272,008 B2 2 July 5, 2007 July 31, 2012 Sept. 18, 2012 Appeal2014-007221 Application 13/727,707 Whiteing ("Whiteing '680") Bull et al. ("Bull") Casagrande et al. ("Casagrande") Whiteing ("Whiteing '193 ")1 US 8,369,680 B2 Feb. 5,2013 US 8,370,754 B2 Feb. 5,2013 US 8,549,569 B2 Oct. 1, 2013 US 9,060,193 B2 June 16, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Whiteing '680, Wood, Cameron, and Bull. (Ans. 2.) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Whiteing '680, Wood, Cameron, and Bull teaches or suggests displaying the status indicator recited in claim 1? (App. Br. 5-7.) ANALYSIS We agree with, and adopt, the findings and reasoning the Examiner sets forth in the Final Action and the Answer regarding the disputed 1 Whiteing '193 was cited by the Examiner after the Reply was filed. (Oct. 30, 2015 Office Communication.) The Examiner notes that the specification of Whiteing '193 is incorporated by reference into Whiteing '680, which was used to reject the pending claims in the Final Action. (Id.) We, however, do not find it necessary to, and do not, consider substantively Whiteing '193 in rendering our decision. 3 Appeal2014-007221 Application 13/727,707 limitation. (Final Act. 2---6; Ans. 2-6, 13-21.) We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that none of the individual cited references disclose the status indicator recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2.)2 Appellants argue the status indicators in Wood concern synchronization of audio and video data, rather than two audio streams as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.) Appellants further argue that the status indicators in Cameron and Bull concern synchronization involving downloaded files, not audio streams. (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2.) Appellants further note that the Examiner concedes that Whiteing '680 does not expressly teach the recited status indicator. (App. Br. 6, citing Final Act. 3.) That none of the individual references in isolation may disclose the disputed limitation, however, does not undermine the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner relies on Whiteing '680 for the requisite synchronization and on Wood, Cameron, and Bull for status indicators showing the status of a synchronization operation. (Ans. 13-21.) Combined, these disclosures teach or suggest the 2 In isolation, the first sentence in the second paragraph of the second page of the Reply could be interpreted as challenging whether the cited references disclose the synchronizing limitation of claim 1. (Reply Br. 2.) In context, we do not believe that is Appellants' intent because the next sentence states that the Examiner concedes Whiteing '680 does not so disclose. (Id., citing Final Action 3.) On the page of the Final Action cited by Appellants, the Examiner finds Whiteing '680 discloses the synchronizing limitation. (Final Act. 3.) In addition, in the first paragraph on the second page of the Reply, Appellants reprint the displaying limitation of claim 1. (Reply Br. 2.) In any event, we would not consider a challenge to the Examiner's findings regarding the synchronizing limitation that was raised for the first time on reply without a showing of good cause. 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.41 (b )(2). 4 Appeal2014-007221 Application 13/727,707 disputed limitation. Jn re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5