Ex Parte Lewis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 28, 2019

13861234 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/861,234 04/11/2013 101198 7590 01/30/2019 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google Patent Docket Administrator One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Justin Lewis 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. 25832.187 (L0187) 8133 EXAMINER SOTO LOPEZ, JOSE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2019 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@lowenstein.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUSTIN LEWIS and KEVIN GREENE Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and methods for displaying annotated video content by mobile computing devices. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving a first position identifier for a first annotation to be overlaid over one or more frames of a video during presentation of the video, wherein the first position identifier defines a first position of the first annotation within the frames where the first annotation is overlaid, and wherein the first position is designed for presentation on a first display of a first computing device; presenting the video on a second display of a mobile computing device, wherein the second display is smaller than the first display, and wherein presentation of the first annotation on the second display at the first position prevents the first annotation from being readable by a user of the mobile computing device within the second display; modifying, by a processing device of the mobile computing device, the first annotation, wherein modifying the first annotation comprises repositioning the first annotation from the first position in the frames of the video for the first display to a second position in the frames of the video for the second display in view of a screen size of the second display to make the first annotation readable by the user within the second display, and wherein the second positon in the frames of the video is different than the first positon in the frames of the video; and presenting the first annotation overlaid over the frames at the second position during presentation of the video on the second display. App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Patterson Lopez Junuzovic Masuko US 2012/0221972 Al Aug. 30, 2012 US 2013/0080916 Al Mar. 28, 2013 US 2014/0063174 Al Mar. 6, 2014 US 2015/0149883 Al May 28, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1---6, 9, 11-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez and Junuzovic. Final Act. 10-18. Claims 7, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez, Junuzovic, and Masuko. Final Act. 18-21. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez, Junuzovic, Masuko, and Patterson. Final Act. 21- 23. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Junuzovic teaches or suggests "wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different than the first position in the frames of the video," as recited in independent claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Junuzovic teaches or suggests "resiz[ing] the first annotation ... to make the first annotation readable by the user within the second display and selectable by the user within the touch screen," as recited in independent claim 20? 3 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 ANALYSIS First Issue Claim 1 can be broadly summarized as a process by which annotations in a video file are modified for display on a smaller display device by repositioning the annotation within the video frame to ensure that it is selectable and/or readable by a user. Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different than the first position the frames of the video." In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lopez teaches digital video designed for presentation on a specific display that can be annotated such that the location of the annotations are specified in the annotation data. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner acknowledges that Lopez does not teach the limitations relating to the use of a second display, and turns to Junuzovic, and in particular, Figure 2 depicted below, to address these deficiencies. Final Act. 11-13. Figure 2 of Junuzovic showing annotation (23 8) displayed as annotation (240) within inset (236). More specifically, the Examiner finds a picture-in-picture display, as depicted in Figure 2 of Junuzovic, is a "second display [ ] smaller than the first display" within the meaning of Appellants' claims, and that the 4 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 positioning of annotation (238/240) in the picture-in-picture display (236) is different because "the absolute position is modified to fit into the inset sector 236." Final Act. 13. Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because Junuzovic does not teach that the annotation (240) displayed within the inset (23 6) is positioned any differently than the annotation (238) that is displayed within larger local display screen (214). App. Br. 9. Appellants argue Junuzovic teaches that "as the inset sector is resized, the annotation is repositioned and resized to keep it at the same position within the frames of the video." Id. We agree with Appellants. The annotation (240) in Junuzovic shown in the inset (236) is not in a different position than the annotation (238) shown in the larger display (214). Rather, as Junuzovic explains, the inset (236) is simply a uniformly scaled-down version of the larger display (214). Junuzovic ,r 33 ("[T]he location and size of the digital annotation 23 8 that is made by the local user is mapped from the local display screen to the inset sector 23 6 on the remote display screen."). Thus, the intent of Junuzovic's shared display system is to reproduce the annotation identically on the smaller inset display, and not to place the annotation in a different location within the display. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding Junuzovic teaches "wherein the second position in the frames of the video is different than the first position the frames of the video," and do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2---6, 9, 11-16, and 19, which each recite the same limitation. 5 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 Second Issue Appellants argue separately for patentability of independent claim 20, which also is rejected as obvious over Lopez in Junuzovic. Claim 20 is similar to claim 1 in that it generally recites modifying an annotation for display on a smaller display to ensure that it is readable on the smaller display where it otherwise would not be without modification. It differs, however, in that it recites that the second display includes a touch screen and the modification of the annotation "resize[ s] the first annotation ... to make the first annotation readable by the user within the second display and selectable by the user within the touch screen." App. Br. 25-26 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds "it is a device comprising similar limitations as the method in claim 2 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons." Final Act. 18. The Examiner's reasoning in connection with respect to claim 2 is similar to the reasoning provided for rejecting claim 1, namely that in Junuzovic' s Figure 2 "annotation 240 is a resized version of annotation 238, such that said annotation 238 can be readable within the inset sector 236." Final Act. 14. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner does not explain how Junuzovic teaches that the annotation is modified to be made "selectable by the user within the touch screen." However, in the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds Lopez teaches the recited "selectable by the user" because it describes the use of annotation selection data. Ans. 20 ( citing Lopez ,r 55). Appellants contend the Examiner has erred in concluding claim 20 is obvious over Lopez and Junuzovic. Appellants argue that there is no teaching in Junuzovic that any annotation is "resized ... to make the ... 6 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 annotation readable ... and selectable." App. Br. 15-16. Appellants argue Junuzovic makes no reference to readability of any annotation, nor is there any indication in Junuzovic that the change in size of the annotation that takes place causes the annotation to be selectable or readable where it otherwise would not be. App. Br. 16. In the Reply Brief, Appellants address the Examiner's additional reliance on Lopez, arguing that "Lopez teaches mapping a selection zone in all displays to a same position in every other display to maintain the selections zone." Reply Br. 5. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner relies on Lopez's description of annotation selection data for teaching the recited "make the ... annotation ... selectable." Ans. 20. However, annotation selection data as described in Lopez does not relate to selecting the annotation via a user interface on a touch display. Rather, the "annotation selection data" in Lopez is described as data which "specifies the times in screen locations at which certain scene elements, each having an element identifier 116, are displayed." Lopez ,r 55. Although the cited portion of Lopez includes the word "selection," in context, it is clear that the "selection" described is not the type of selecting that is recited in Appellants' claims. Accordingly, we are persuaded Lopez does not teach or suggest the modifying an annotation that would otherwise be not selectable so that it is selectable, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. 7 Appeal2018-004464 Application 13/861,234 REVERSED 8