Ex Parte Morzos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

12618019 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
12/618,019 11/13/2009 Adam C. Morzos 290110.502 5776
70336 7590 11/23/2016
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
HUYNH, AN SON PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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 ADAM C. MORZOS
____________________

Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,0191
Technology Center 2400
____________________
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to a television receiver that requests, receives,
and displays content from other television receivers, such as an image of the
program currently displayed by the other receivers or video from a camera
connected to the other receivers. Spec. ¶ 5, Abstract.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is EchoStar Technologies
L.L.C. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

2
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for generating an output for a television receiver,
comprising:
sending at least one command to tune to a first channel,
utilizing a first television receiver, to at least one other television
receiver of a plurality of two or more other television receivers
via a local area network;
sending at least one request for content, utilizing the first
television receiver, to the plurality of two or more other
television receivers via the local area network, the request for
content including a request for a still image snapshot of
programming content that the respective television receiver is
currently outputting to an associated display device;
receiving content at the first television receiver from each
of the plurality of two or more other television receivers via the
local area network wherein the content received from each of the
plurality of two or more other television receivers comprises a
still image snapshot of programming content the respective
television receiver is currently outputting to an associated
display device and when content is detected by a video camera
connected to at least one of the plurality of two or more other
television receivers, replacing the still image from the respective
television receiver with a live video feed from the video camera
connected to the respective television receiver;
generating an output mosaic having a plurality of portions,
utilizing the first television receiver, the output mosaic including
live video of programming content from a tuner associated with
the first television receiver and the still image snapshot or the
live video feed of content detected by the respective video
camera received from each of the plurality of two or more other
television receivers wherein a first portion of the mosaic
corresponds to the live video of programming content from the
tuner associated with the first television receiver and
concurrently, each of the remaining plurality of portions of the
mosaic corresponds to a respective one of the still image
snapshots or the live video feed of content detected by the
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

3
respective video camera received from at least one of the
plurality of two or more other television receivers;
periodically sending subsequent requests for content,
utilizing the first television receiver, to the plurality of two or
more other television receivers via the local area network, the
subsequent requests for content including updated still image
snapshots;
receiving at the first television receiver user input
identifying a selected one of the still image snapshots; and
switching the tuner associated with the first television
receiver to receive streaming programming content
corresponding to the selected still image snapshot.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 5.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Woods et al. (US 2010/0262938
A1; Oct. 14, 2010), Issa et al. (US 8,307,395 B2; Nov. 6, 2012), and
Grannan et al. (US 2008/0022322 A1; Jan. 24, 2008). Final Act. 6. The
rejection further relies on five publications of applications that were
incorporated by reference into Woods: Ellis et al. (US 2005/0251827 A1;
Nov. 10, 2005) (“Ellis ’827” or “E827”), Ellis et al. (US 2005/0028208 A1;
Feb. 3, 2005) (“Ellis ’208” or “E208”), DeWeese et al. (US 2005/0262542
A1; Nov. 24, 2005), McKissick et al. (US 2006/0190966 A1; Aug. 24,
2006), and Yates (US 2010/0153885 A1; June 17, 2010). Final Act. 6.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the Specification failed to
provide sufficient written description for “when content is detected by a
video camera connected to at least one of the plurality of two or more other
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

4
receivers, replacing the still image from the respective television receiver
with a live video feed from the video camera connected to the respective
television receiver,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art references
teach or suggest “sending at least one request for content . . . including a
request for a still image snapshot of programming content that the respective
television receiver is currently outputting to an associated display device,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Written Description
Claim 1 recites “when content is detected by a video camera
connected to at least one of the plurality of two or more other receivers,
replacing the still image from the respective television receiver with a live
video feed from the video camera connected to the respective television
receiver.” Independent claims 14 and 18 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds this limitation lacks adequate written description
in the Specification. Final Act. 5. Appellant points to portions of the
Specification that discuss a television receiver iteratively sending requests to
other television receivers for either still images or live video feeds. App. Br.
14–18 (citing Spec. ¶ 32, FIG. 4); Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 38).
However, even if we agreed with Appellant that this was sufficient for
“replacing the still image . . . with a live video feed,” we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant fails to identify sufficient support for providing
video based on the conditional clause “when content is detected by a video
camera” connected to a second receiver (as opposed to the second receiver
providing video in response to a request from a first receiver). See Ans. 18–
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

5
20. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not sufficiently address the claim as
presently written.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection
of claims 1, 14, and 18, as well as dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19.
Obviousness
Claim 1 recites “sending at least one request for content . . ., the
request for content including a request for a still image snapshot of
programming content that the respective television receiver is currently
outputting to an associated display device.” Within a single overall
rejection, the Examiner sets forth a number of alternative findings for this
limitation that rely on different prior art references.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments against Woods, Yates,
DeWeese, and Grannan. Specifically, Woods and Yates display a channel
guide listing content available for display, not programming content that
other television receivers are currently outputting. Woods ¶ 46, FIG. 2;
Yates FIG. 6. DeWeese teaches a set-top box connected to a camera, but we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not articulated sufficient
explanation why a person of ordinary skill would turn the camera to point at
the television. DeWeese FIGs. 11–12; Reply Br. 7. Grannan teaches
displaying live video of multiple cameras in the house, but the Examiner has
not sufficiently identified still images rather than video. Grannan FIG. 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Issa teaches or suggests
the claimed limitation. Issa teaches “key frame information may include key
frames of the video content item” and “[e]ach key frame is representative of
a segment of the video content item.” Issa 1:30–36. Thus, a key frame can
be displayed in place of a segment of video. One example Issa discusses is
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

6
displaying key frames for the videos that buddies in a buddy list are
watching, such as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 of Issa is reproduced below.

“FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary buddy list 10 including key frames of
video content items being viewed by users included in the buddy list 10.”
Issa 6:65–67. In Figure 4,
key frames 18 through 22 are presented for each of the users in
the buddy list 10. Thus, for example, the key frame 18 is a key
frame corresponding to a segment of a video content item
Appeal 2016-000283
Application 12/618,019

7
currently being viewed by the user “Joe.” As the user “Joe”
continues to view that video content item, the key frame 18 is
updated with new key frames corresponding to the segment of
the video content item currently being viewed by the user “Joe.”
Issa 7:5–12. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Issa’s buddy list
requests still image snapshots of the programming content that other buddies
on the list are currently watching. Ans. 27.
Appellant summarizes the cited portions of Issa and asserts they fail to
teach the claimed limitation, but fails to sufficiently explain why that
limitation is missing and therefore is unpersuasive. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19, which Appellant argues
are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 33, 20–21; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19. No time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED