Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

10675490 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES BENNETT
____________

Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to creating a media program for a personal
television channel. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for producing and delivering media
content, the method comprising:

establishing a personal television channel at a first
geographic location, said personal television channel associated
with existing media content;

creating metadata associated with said existing media
content;

modifying said existing media content with additional
media content to produce a media program, wherein said
metadata is created previously to said modifying;

editing, at said first geographic location, said previously
created metadata associated with said media content, said
editing based on said additional media content;

associating said produced media program and said edited
metadata with said established personal television channel; and

communicating said produced media program along with
said edited metadata to another geographic location.

Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Novak

Foreman

Weber
US 2002/0104099 A1

US 6,628,303 B1

US 7,284,032 B2
Aug. 1, 2002

Sept. 30, 2003
(filed July 29, 1996)

Oct. 16, 2007
(filed Dec. 19, 2001)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, 30-32, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novak and Foreman.
Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novak, Foreman, and Weber.
Claims 33, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Novak, Foreman, and Appellants’ admission.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 23, 24, 26-29, 31-33, and 35-37
Appellants contend that the combination of Novak and Foreman does
not disclose “editing, at said first geographic location, said previously
created metadata associated with said media content, said editing based on
said additional media content,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br.
7). Specifically, Appellants argue that Foreman’s “storyboard shot
descriptions 87” are not metadata associated with media content because
they are created before capturing any video data (App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

4
Accordingly, Foreman’s later capturing of video data and associating the
shot descriptions with the captured video does not disclose editing
previously created metadata associated with media content (App. Br. 11-12).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because they do not
specifically address all the cited disclosure in Foreman, including what it
reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Foreman discloses a video editing program for capturing video data
and creating clip descriptions where the clip descriptions are stored in “a
data structure 88 which represents the sequence of clip descriptions which
make up the timeline” (Foreman, col. 10, ll. 60-65). The Examiner finds
that Foreman’s creating of clip descriptions meets the limitation “creating
metadata associated with said existing media content,” as recited in claim 1
(Ans. 5, 17). The Examiner further finds that “the claimed ‘editing of the
previously created metadata’ is preformed [sic] by way of the interface of
Figure 9 where ‘[a]fter clips for a movie have been captured, more finely
detailed editing of the video program can be started’ (as described in Col. 11
Line 3—Col. 12 Line 31)” (Ans. 17). Specifically, Foreman discloses:
After clips for a movie have been captured, more finely
detailed editing of the video program can be started.
Accordingly, another of the selectable interfaces 56 provides
functions for editing a movie, as shown in FIG. 9 via several
selectable interfaces 152-156. . . .

. . . .

In the viewer interface 152, a display region 188 shows
the title and duration of the video program. A user can play
back the video program, adjust the duration of clips (by
trimming), delete clips, insert clips and/or move clips within the
video program. . . .
Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

5
For rearranging clips on the timeline, clips are insertable
at transitions and can be performed using a “drag and drop”
operation, which can be implemented using standard
techniques. Insertion of a clip involves creating a hole the size
of the clip, then replacing the hole with the clip to be inserted.

(Foreman, col. 11, ll. 3-64) (emphasis added). This disclosure at least would
have suggested performing appropriate editing of the data structure that
includes the clip descriptions when inserting a clip into the video program as
part of any detailed editing. That is, “creating a hole the size of the clip,
then replacing the hole with the clip to be inserted” on Foreman’s timeline
(Foreman, col. 11, ll. 62-64) would have suggested, if not required, editing
“the sequence of clip descriptions which make up the timeline” (Foreman,
col. 10, ll. 64-65). For example, each clip description includes “start and
stop times corresponding to the beginning of the file” (Foreman, col. 10, ll.
62-63; see also col. 8, ll. 31-35; Fig. 7). Accordingly, if a clip is inserted
into the video program, the clip descriptions of the subsequent clips would
contain improper start and stop times unless this data was updated.
Appellants argue that “Fig. 9 describes several selectable interfaces
for performing a detailed editing of the video program, and not the data file
(i.e., the alleged ‘metadata’) created in step 220” (App. Br. 13; see also App.
Br. 19-20). However, this argument does not address the editing of clip
descriptions which Foreman would have suggested as part of the detailed
editing, as discussed above. Thus, Appellants do not persuasively explain
why Foreman’s detailed editing of a video program fails to disclose “editing,
at said first geographic location, said previously created metadata associated
with said media content, said editing based on said additional media
content” (claim 1).
Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

6
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, along with independent claims 11 and 21 and
dependent claim 34 not separately argued. Although Appellants nominally
argue dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-19, 23, 24, 26-29, 31-33, and
35-37 separately, Appellants rely on the arguments for claims 1, 11, and 21
from which these claims depend. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of
claims 3, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-19, 23, 24, 26-29, 31-33, and 35-37 for the
reasons discussed above.

Claims 2, 12, and 22
Regarding claim 2, Appellants contend that “neither Novak nor
Foreman disclose any specific action of ‘acquiring’ the metadata prior to its
editing” (App. Br. 21). We disagree.
In the Examiner’s combination, Novak’s metadata can be edited based
on modifications to the associated media content, as taught by Foreman (see
Ans. 5-6). The Examiner further finds that Novak’s user acquires metadata
associated with uploaded media content when it is presented in the user
interface 702 in Novak’s Figure 7 (Ans. 6-7, 19; Novak, ¶¶ 64-70, Fig. 7).
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that in the combination of Novak and
Foreman one would have acquired the metadata before editing it (see Ans. 6-
7, 19).
Appellants do not specifically explain why the Examiner’s
combination fails to meet the claimed “acquiring prior to said editing, said
metadata associated with said media content” (claim 2). Particularly,
Appellants do not explain why Novak’s presenting metadata to the user in
the user interface does not disclose “acquiring” metadata by the user. We
Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

7
note that claim 2 does not require performing the claimed “acquiring” by
any specific entity or individual. That is, claim 2 does not preclude a user
from visually acquiring the metadata from a user interface.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2 and claims 12 and 22 not separately argued.

Claims 5, 15, and 25
Regarding claim 5, Appellants contend that “the combination of
Novak and Foreman does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of
‘updating said acquired metadata associated with media content to reflect at
least a portion of changes associated with said modifying’” (App. Br. 22).
Specifically, Appellants argue that “the Examiner has already conceded . . .
that Novak does not disclose the modifying of the media, as well as the
editing of the metadata based on the modified media” and that “Foreman, as
explained above, does not overcome these deficiencies of Novak” (App. Br.
23). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 2, we are not
persuaded that Novak fails to disclose acquiring metadata. Further, as
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that Foreman
fails to disclose editing metadata based on modified media content. We are
therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 and
claims 15 and 25 not separately argued.

Claims 10, 20, and 30
Regarding claim 10, Appellants contend that “the combination of
Novak and Foreman does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of
Appeal 2011-012398
Application 10/675,490

8
‘synchronizing said modified media content for presentation in said personal
television channel’ ” (App. Br. 25). We disagree.
In the Examiner’s combination, Novak’s media content can be
modified with additional media content as taught by Foreman (see Ans. 5-6).
As further taught by Foreman, such modification includes inserting clips into
a video program at a specific place in a timeline by “creating a hole the size
of the clip, then replacing the hole with the clip to be inserted” (Foreman,
col. 11, ll. 62-64). Thus, the inserted clips are synchronized with the
existing clips in the modified video program. Accordingly, when Novak’s
media content, modified as taught by Foreman, is delivered in a personal
channel, the modified content is synchronized.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10 and claims 20 and 30 not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-37.
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)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb