Ex Parte Goode

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

09922242 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
09/922,242 08/03/2001 Christopher W.B. Goode 60136.0148USU1 9090
94140 7590 09/27/2012
Merchant & Gould - Cox
PO Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LU, SHIRLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER W. B. GOODE
_____________

Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-25 which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

2
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
inserting a compressed digital advertisement video into a compressed
digital program video. See Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:

1. A method for delivering customized navigation imagery to a
user, comprising:
determining a profile associated with an encoded navigation
stream, said profile including spatial and temporal parameters;
encoding a video stream according to said profile to
produce an encoded video stream, said encoded video stream
representing imagery having associated with it a screen position
and an image size;
combining said encoded navigation stream and said
encoded video stream to produce a combined stream representing
navigation imagery including said video stream imagery, said
video stream imagery having associated with it said screen
position and said screen size.
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

3
REFERENCES
Gordon US 6,584,153 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
Boucher US 6,675,387 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Kondo US 2005/0018916 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Gordon WO 00/64170 Oct. 26, 2000
Gordon WO 01/031914 A1 May 3, 2001

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
as being anticipated by Gordon ' 170. Ans. 3-9.
Claims 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by Gordon ‘153. Ans. 9-11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon '170. Ans. 11-12.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Gordon '170, Gordon '914, and Kondo. Ans. 12-13.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gordon '170 and Gordon ‘914. Ans.
13-14.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gordon '170, Gordon ‘914, and
Boucher. Ans. 14-15.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Gordon '170 teaches or suggests
the following limitations:
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

4
1. “determining a profile associated with an encoded navigation
stream [,]”
2. “profile including spatial . . . parameters [,]” and
3. “encoding a video stream according to said profile [?]”
(Independent claim 1).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 requires “determining a profile associated with
an encoded navigation stream.” Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 20 are not
argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no teaching within Gordon '170 of a
video profile being determined in any manner, much less the manner
claimed herein with respect to the subject invention.” App. Br. 17.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the “plain teaching of Gordon '170 is of a
video profile module operating in isolation to provide a common video
profile to each of a plurality of encoded video streams.” Id. This argument
is not commensurate with the claimed invention. Appellant implies that the
claim requires providing a specific profile to a specific stream as opposed to
providing the same profile to all streams. However, the claim only recites
determining a profile and encoding a video stream according to that profile.
The claim is silent as to how other streams are encoded. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by this argument.
Appellant also argues that “[t]he video profile module 460 does not
receive input from any other functional element within the Gordon '170
system.” App. Br. 18. The Examiner notes that Webster’s dictionary
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

5
defines the term determining in claim 1 as “establishing.” Ans. 16.
Appellant does not provide a construction for the term determining and does
not appear to contest the Examiner’s construction. See Rep. Br. at 2. We
conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that
“establishing” is encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“determining” in the context of the invention. Gordon ‘170 discloses that
profile unit 460 applies group of pictures (“GOP”) structures, which are part
of the profile, to a plurality of streams. Gordon '170, p. 17, ll. 10-20; see
also Ans. 16. Based on this textual portion in Gordon '170, we conclude that
there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that Gordon '170 does, in
fact, disclose that the profile unit 460 establishes a profile associated with an
encoded navigation stream Ans. 16. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Gordon '170 discloses “determining a profile associated with an
encoded navigation stream.”
Claim 1 also requires “encoding a video stream according to said
profile.” Appellant argues that “Gordon '170 simply does not determine such
a profile. Therefore, Gordon ‘170 cannot be said to teach the utilization of
such a determined profile.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis in original). Given that
we find that Gordon '170 does in fact determine a profile, this argument is
unavailing. Appellant further argues that “[i]rrespective of the profile data
discussed in Gordon, the profile data is extracted at subscriber side
equipment and provided, if at all, to a decoder (rather than an encoder).”
App. Br. 20. However, Gordon discloses that video information is
“generated at the cable central processing location or a head end, and
transmitted as part of a video stream. Thus, the actual display parameters ...
are entirely controlled at the central location.” Gordon '170, p. 5, l. 30 – p.
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

6
6, l. 3; see, also Ans. 17. Based on this teaching in Gordon ‘170, we
conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that Gordon
‘170 does, in fact, disclose encoding of profile information at a central
location rather than the subscriber side. Ans. 17. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Gordon '170 discloses “encoding a video stream according
to said profile.” Id.
Claim 1 also requires a “profile including spatial . . . parameters.”
Appellant argues that “Gordon '170 does not discuss spatial profile data,
only frame boundary data.” App. Br. 20. Appellant notes that “[s]patial
parameters rely on the homogeneity of spatially localized features such as
intensity, texture, and position within a frame.” Rep. Br. 3. Appellant does
not provide a citation for this definition. The specification discloses that
position on the screen is a spatial parameter. Spec. 18. Gordon ‘170
discloses that “[a]ctual display parameters (i.e., the size, shape, color,
position and other visual parameters) associated with each object are entirely
controlled at the central location.” Gordon '170, p.6, ll. 1-3; see also Ans.
17-18. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gordon '170 discloses a
“profile including spatial . . . parameters.” Ans. 17-18.
For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
being anticipated by Gordon '170.
The Appellant does not provide any substantive additional arguments
for the rejections under §102 of claims 21-25 and under §103 of claims 7,
12, 18, and 19. App. Br. 22-24. Hence, those grounds of rejection are
affirmed for the same reasons discussed regarding the §102 rejection of
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-012247
Application 09/922,242

7

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-25 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

tj