Ex Parte GHARACHORLOO et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2016

12858336 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/858,336 08/17/2010
25537 7590 03/16/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nader GHARACHORLOO
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.
20100388 5640
EXAMINER
KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NADER GHARACHORLOO, AFSHIN MOSHREFI,
and RAHUL KHUSHOO
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 9, 16, and 22 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a matrix search of
video using an index generated from closed caption data of video programs
(Abstract). Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computing device-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, a search query from a
user;
performing a search, by the computing device and based
on the search query, to identify one or more video programs that
are relevant to the search query, where the search is performed
using an index generated from closed caption data associated
with the video programs;
presenting, by the computing device, the video programs
that are relevant to the search query as a matrix of reduced-in-
size images sampled from the video programs that are relevant
to the search query, where the images are sampled from the
relevant video programs near a position in the relevant video
programs corresponding to the positions at which the search
query is relevant to the video programs;
detecting selection by the user of one of the video
programs that are presented in the matrix of reduced-in-size
images; and
playing, in response to the detected selection, the selected
video program, beginning at a location in the selected video
program that is a predetermined time period before the position
in the selected video program at which the search query is
relevant.
10. The method of claim 1, where presenting the video programs
further includes:
simultaneously playing each of the presented video programs.
2
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Begeja
Birmingham
Crawford
Iwamura
US 2003/0030752 Al
US 2003/0093814 Al
US 2004/0040041 Al
US 7,797,711 B2
REJECTIONS
Feb. 13,2003
May 15, 2003
Feb.26,2004
Sept. 14, 2010
Claims 1-8, 12-15, 19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja and Birmingham (Final Act. 3-
7).
Claims 10, 11, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Begeja and Iwamura (Final Act. 7-8).
Claims 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crawford and Begeja (Final Act. 8-9).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-8, 12-15, 19, and 24
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Begeja and
Birmingham (App. Br. 9-12). The issues presented by Appellants'
arguments are:
Issue 1 a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Begeja and Birmingham teaches or suggests "playing, in response to the
detected selection, the selected video program, beginning at a location in the
selected video program that is a predetermined time period before the
position in the selected video program at which the search query is relevant,"
as recited in claim 1?
Issue 1 b: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Begeja and Birmingham teaches or suggests "the predetermined time period
is approximately ten seconds," as recited in claim 8?
Issue 1 c: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Begeja and Birmingham teaches or suggests "the plurality of images are
displayed as a two-dimensional matrix of images," as recited in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Issue la:
Appellants contend Begeja segments content before playback time
and transmits the segmented content for playback; however, Begeja does not
disclose that in response to the detected selection, the selected video
program is played beginning at a location that is a predetermined time
period before the position in the selected video program at which the search
query is relevant (App. Br. 11 ). According to Appellants, Begeja teaches
4
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
playback of segments based on segment boundaries, not based on a
predetermined time period (id.). Appellants further argue the Examiner's
interpretation of the term "predetermined" is mistaken (Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Initially, we note
"predetermined" has not been defined explicitly in Appellants'
Specification. Appellants proffer a definition; however, Appellants have not
shown this was the interpretation of the term at the time of the invention, by
for example, providing a copyright date (id. (citing "the Merriam-Webster
online dictionary"). Regardless, even using Appellants' proffered definition
("'to decide (something) before it happens or in advance' or 'to determine
beforehand"' (id.)), we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
findings.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Begeja teaches
playback, in response to detection of one of the video programs presented
(Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4). As set forth by the Examiner, Begeja teaches an
algorithm may be used to determine the portion of entire video file
pertaining to the content and to extract that content for delivery (Final Act.
4; Ans. 2; Begeja i-f 24). Begeja further teaches a user can have access to
portions of the original video file that occurred immediately before the
extracted segments by, for example, selecting a "more" button (Final Act. 4;
Begeja i-f 25). We agree with the Examiner that Begeja teaches various
additional information can be included at the beginning of clip and viewed
by a user (Ans. 3; Begeja i-f 63). Thus, we determine Begeja teaches, or at
least suggests, a user can play the selected video program that includes
portions of the video immediately before the extracted segments. As a
result, we are unpersuaded Begeja fails to teach "playing, in response to the
5
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
detected selection, the selected video program, beginning at a location in the
selected video program that is a predetermined time period before the
position in the selected video program at which the search query is relevant,"
as recited in claim 1.
Appellants' argument that Begeja's segmenting video into individual
segments ahead of time, would result in playback of video programs having
varying time periods relative to a position in the video program at which a
search query is relevant (App. Br. 10), is also not persuasive. Appellants'
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Indeed, the
claim requires playback of the selected video program to begin at a location
in the selected video program that is a predetermined time period before the
position at which the search query is relevant. The claim does not specify
the amount of the predetermined period or how that predetermined period is
determined.
Issue 1 b:
With respect to claim 8, Appellants argue Begeja does not teach the
predetermined time period is approximately ten seconds (App. Br. 12-13).
The Examiner finds Begeja teaches the recited predetermined time period of
claim 1 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5). The Examiner further determines an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to set the
predetermined time period to approximately ten seconds (id.). We agree
with the Examiner's findings and reasoning. Moreover, Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us setting the
predetermined time period would have been uniquely challenging or
otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Nor have
6
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
Appellants proffered sutlicient evidence or argument to persuade us setting a
predetermined time period to a specific amount would not have been routine
experimentation to discover the most desirable time period.
Issue 1 c:
With respect to claim 15, Appellants argue Begeja fails to disclose
"the plurality of images are displayed as a two-dimensional matrix of
images" (App. Br. 14). According to Appellants, Begeja discloses still
frames are presented in a linear manner, which does not display "a number
of possible results to the user, potentially allowing the user to efficiently
choose the video program in which the user is interested in viewing" (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Initially, we note
Begeja's Figure 5 is an exemplary embodiment of a page view (Begeja
i-f 20). This Figure discloses a 1 x 3 matrix (see William H. Beyer, CRC
Standard Mathematical Tables 26 (27th ed. 1984)). Thus, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Begeja and Birmingham teaches or suggests the limitations
as recited in independent claims 1 and dependent claims 8 and 15. Claims
2-7 and 12 are asserted as being patentable based on their dependence on
claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13). Independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14
and 19 are argued on the basis of claim 1. Claim 24 is not separately argued.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 12-15, 19, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Begeja and Birmingham.
7
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10, 11, 17, and 18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Begeja and
Iwanmra (App. Br. 16-20). The issues presented by Appellants' arguments
are:
Issue 2 a: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Begeja and Iwamura teaches or suggests "where the images are sampled
from the relevant video programs near a position in the relevant video
programs corresponding to the positions at which the search query is
relevant to the video programs," as recited in claim 1, from which claims 10
and 11 depend, and "where each image corresponds to an image that is from
a position in the associated video program corresponding to the search
query," as recited in claim 13, from which claims 17 and 18 depend?
Issue 2b: Does Iwamura qualify as analogous art for the obviousness
determination?
ANALYSIS
Issue 2a:
Appellants argue the Examiner has admitted Begeja does not teach the
disputed limitation recited in claims 1 and 13, and Iwamura does not cure
the deficiency of Begeja (App. Br. 15).
Claims 10 and 11 depend directly and indirectly, respectively, from
independent claim 1. Claims 17 and 18 depend directly and indirectly, from
claim 13. Claims 1 and 13 were rejected as being obvious over Begeja and
Birmingham (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4). In the Answer, the Examiner finds
Begeja in view of Birmingham teaches the disputed limitation; however, the
Examiner has not included Birmingham in the rejection of claims 10, 11, 17,
8
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
and 18 (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6). Although we are inclined to believe
omission of Birmingham in this rejection was an inadvertent error, absent a
clear statement of the Examiner's rejection as including Birmingham or the
Examiner identifying where Begeja and/or Iwamura teaches the disputed
limitation, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection.
Issue 2b:
Moreover, Appellants further contend Iwamura is non-analogous art
because I wamura is directed to a graphical interface providing visual
representation of routing of audio/visual signals via switches in an
audio/video system (App. Br. 18). We are persuaded by Appellants'
argument. I wamura is directed to a graphical user interface for a device
having multiple input and output nodes (Abstract). Although Iwamura is
directed to a graphical user interface, we are not persuaded the reference is
from the same field of endeavor or still reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem addressed by the inventor's endeavor. Indeed, the Examiner has
not responded to Appellants' argument, by specifying why I wamura is
analogous art.
Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 10, 11, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Begeja and Iwamura.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 20, 21, and 23
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Crawford and
Begeja (App. Br. 20-22). The issue presented by Appellants' arguments is:
9
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Crawford and Begeja teaches or suggests "play, in response to the detected
selection, the selected television program, beginning at a location in the
selected television program that is a predetermined time period before a
position in the selected television program at which the search query is
relevant to the selected television program," as recited in claim 20?
ANALYSIS
For the reasons set forth above in Issue 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that Begeja fails to teach the disputed limitation
(App. Br. 21-22). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Crawford and Begeja teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claim 20, and claims 21 and 23, not
separately argued (App. Br. 22). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Crawford and Begeja.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 12-15, 19, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja and Birmingham is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Begeja and Iwamura is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crawford and Begeja is affirmed.
10
Appeal2014-002320
Application 12/858,336
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11