Ex Parte Obrador

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

10141016 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PERE OBRADOR
____________________

Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and HUNG H.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pere Obrador, the Appellant,1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 30-39 and 45-53.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 The Appellant states that the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. Appeal Brief filed on October 2, 2009 (“App.
Br.”).
2 App. Br. 5; Final Office Action mailed on May 4, 2009; Examiner’s
Answer mailed on January 7, 2010 (“Ans.”) at 2.
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s claims are generally directed to a video managing system
and a corresponding method of managing a database of video data (files)
which utilizes user initiated activities to index video segments of the video
data (files) and allows a user to program a sequence of video segments from
the database of the video data (files) for playback, via a video player, using
index information. See generally Abstract, Summary, Spec. ¶ [0030].
Application Figure 1, as reproduced below, is helpful in
understanding the invention.

Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a video managing system

Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

3
As shown in Figure 1, the video managing system 100 is provided
with at least a memory 120, a processor 122, a video player 126, a
hierarchical video indexer 128 and a video organizer 132. The hierarchical
video indexer 128 operates to automatically index video files and other
video segments in a hierarchical browsing structure according to user
viewing activities and create hierarchical indexing information 134 for
storage in the memory 120 (Spec. 12-15, ¶¶ [0039]-[0043]). The video
organizer 132 operates to allow a user to program a sequence of video
segments from the database 102 and generate a video sequence play file 136
of specific video segments to be played, via the video player 126, using the
indexing information 134 (Spec. 21, ¶[0054]).
Claims 30-39 and 43-53 are on appeal. Claims 30, 35 and 43 are
independent. Appellant has grouped independent claims 30 and 43 together,
and has argued independent claims 30 and 35 separately as well as
dependent claims 47, 50 and 53 in his Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 5). 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Independent claims 30 and 35 are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as shown in Figure 1.
Independent claim 30 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
30. A method executed by a processor of managing
video data comprising:
providing indexing information associated with video
segments of said video data, wherein the indexing information
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

4
is created based on monitoring user viewing activities of said
video data; and
generating a video sequence play file of specific video
segments of said video data using said indexing information in
response to selection of said specific video segments and to
selection of an order of said specific video segments, said video
sequence play file including indices of locations in said video
data of said specific video segments.

Independent claim 35 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
35. A system for managing video data comprising:
memory containing indexing information of video
segments of said video data, wherein the indexing information
is created based on monitoring user viewing activities of said
video data;
a processor; and
a video organizer executable on the processor to generate
a video sequence play file of specific video segments of said
video data using said indexing information in response to
selection of said specific video segments and selection of an
order for said specific video segments, said video sequence play
file including specific indices of locations in said video data of
said specific video segment.

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Katinsky U.S. Patent No. 6,452,609 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

5
Arora U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0018972 A1 Jan. 23, 2003
Mano et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,793,366 Aug. 11, 1998
Anwar U.S. Patent No. 6,490,577 B1 Dec. 3, 2002

Rejections
(1) Claims 30-39, 43-46, 48-49, and 51-52 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katinsky, U.S. Patent No.
6,452,609 (Katinsky ‘609) in view of Arora, U.S. Patent Publication No.
2003/0018972 (Arora ‘972).
(2) Claims 47, 50 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972 and further in
view of Mano, U.S. Patent No. 5,793,366 (Mano ‘366) and Anwar, U.S.
Patent No. 6,490,577 (Anwar ‘577).

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the cited prior art, including Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972,
teaches or suggests “indexing information associated with video segments of
said video data, wherein the indexing information is created based on
monitoring user viewing activities of said video data” as recited in each of
independent claims 30, 35 and 43.

Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

6
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of facts are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office).
Katinsky ‘609
1. Katinsky ‘609 discloses a video managing system and a
corresponding method of managing multimedia streams (a variety of media
types, such as text, audio, images, animation, and video clips; see col. 3, ll.
45-50) in the context of a media access web page, shown in FIG. 1, as
reproduced below:

Figure 1 illustrates a media access web page
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

7
2. According to Katinsky ‘609, the media streams contain media
content units, called “media objects”, and graphical representations of such
media content units, called “media icons” (col. 3, ll. 55-58). As shown in
FIG. 1, the media access web page 10 includes a media icon access panel 12,
a sequencer 14, an object player 16, and a site-driven area 18. The media
icon access panel 12 organizes media icons into a hierarchical outline or list,
and support searches for media objects. The sequencer 14 allows a user to
select media icons from the media icon access panel 12, and to create a
sequence, or play list of media icons representing a playing order for the
media objects associated with the media icons. The object player 16 is used
to play the currently selected media objects in a desired playing order
defined by the play list 50 in the sequencer 14 (col. 4, ll. 8-18; col. 5, ll. 4-6;
col. 6, ll. 1-3).
3. Katinsky ‘609 also discloses that the user can modify the play
list 50 to arrange the media objects into a desired playing order, shown in
FIG. 4, as reproduced below:

FIG. 4 illustrates the sequencer containing several media icons
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

8
For example, the user can: (1) view and create a play list 50 of
multiple video clips (col. 7, ll. 30-31), (2) create multiple play lists 50 by use
of the play list button 46 (col. 5, ll. 35-36), (3) create a personal preference
profile that determines video content to be preloaded into the sequencer 14
for inclusion into the play list 50 (col. 8, ll. 33-44), and (4) apply a filter
based on prior user viewing and/or selections (col. 8, ll. 61-67 – col. 9, ll. 1-
3).
Arora ‘972
4. Arora ‘972 teaches the use of a surf list (play list) 140 in a
media processing system 120 to allow a user to efficiently preview media
channels (video streams) that are most relevant based on prior user’s
viewing pattern (see ¶ [0012]) without the user’s direct input.
5. Arora ‘972 further discloses that these media channels are video
streams and each channel includes a video clip (see ¶¶ [0015] and [0017]).
Mano ‘366
6. Mano ‘366 teaches the use of a list of video clips in a graphical
user interface 10 having a browsing structure containing video frames of
video clips 55, shown in FIG. 3, as reproduced below.
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

9

FIG. 3 illustrates a printing video frame task displayed within
the control display window of a graphical user interface (GUI)

7. Mano ‘366 further discloses that these example video frames 32
can also be selected by a user for printing purposes (col. 5, ll. 55-60; col. 6,
ll. 16-18).
Anwar ‘577
8. Anwar ‘577 teaches a search engine that monitors and stores
user activity data, including printing and bookmarking, for purposes of
refining rankings in subsequent searches (col. 1, ll. 12-16; col. 5, ll. 1-4).

Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

10
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
During prosecution, the PTO gives claim terms their “broadest
reasonable interpretation.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2000). The purpose of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
is to reduce “the possibility that claims . . . will be given broader scope than
is justified” by the prior art. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (internal citations omitted). The purpose is not to stretch the
interpretation of a claim far beyond what would be reasonably understood by
the skilled worker in the light of the specification, to read on a prior art
structure which could possibly, but not reasonably, be covered by it. The
“broadest reasonable interpretation” rule recognizes that “before a patent is
granted the claims are readily amended as part of the examination process.”
Burlington Indus. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, a
patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any
ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application. In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Additionally, the broadest
reasonable interpretation rule “serves the public interest by reducing the
possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is
justified.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Further, an invention is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if it is
obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Any need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention can
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

11
provide a reason for combining elements in the manner claimed. Id. at 420.
In particular, the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. Id. at 416.

V. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s responses to the Appellant’s
arguments. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments and
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the final Office Action, and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further
emphasize the following:
Claims 30, 31, 33, 34, 43 and 44
Appellant argues that neither Katinsky ‘609 nor Arora ‘972 teaches or
suggests “indexing information associated with video segments of said video
data, wherein the indexing information is created based on monitoring user
viewing activities of said video data” as defined in independent claims 30
and 43 (App. Br. 6-9; Rep. Br. 2-4).
We disagree. Katinsky ‘609 discloses user creation of a sequence or a
play list of media icons representing a playing order for the media objects
(i.e., video clips) associated with the media icons (see FIG. 3A, 3B, col. 4, ll.
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

12
7-25; col. 5, ll. 1-27). Katinsky ‘609 further teaches that the play list can be
created based on monitoring user prior viewings and selections (see col. 8. ll,
61-67 – col. 9, ll. 1-3). Similarly, Arora ‘972 expressly discloses the use of
a surf list (play list) created based on prior user’s viewing pattern (see
¶ [0012]).
Claim terms must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation”
consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372. According
to the Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition, the term
“index” of Appellants is defined as “a list describing the items of a
collection and where they may be found” and this definition is consistent
with the specification. Similarly, the term “play list” of Katinsky ‘609 and
Arora ‘972 is defined by the Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College
Edition as: “a limited list of musical recordings or video that may be
played.” In short, the play list of Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972 is an
example of “indexing information” as recited in independent claims 30 and
43. As such, and given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent
with the specification, the limitation “indexing information associated with
video segments of said video data, wherein the indexing information is
created based on monitoring user viewing activities of said video data” as
recited in independent claims 30 and 43 encompasses “the play list of media
icons representing a playing order for the media objects [(i.e., video clips)]
associated with the media icons” and that the play list can be created based
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

13
on monitoring user prior viewings and selections of Katinsky ‘609 (see col.
8, ll. 61-67 – col. 9, ll. 1-3).
Claims 32, 45, 46, 51 and 52
Appellant argues that neither Katinsky ‘609 nor Arora ‘972 teaches or
suggests “a hierarchical browsing structure (created based on monitoring
user viewing activities of video data) in which the video segments of the
video data are positioned in different levels based on a predefined criterion”
as defined in dependent claims 32, 45, 51 and 52 (App. Br. 10).
We disagree. Katinsky ‘609 teaches a hierarchical outline, list or
browsing structure, as shown, for example, in FIG. 2C and FIG. 8A, in
which various media objects (i.e., video clips) are positioned in different
levels based on a predefined criterion. In addition, FIG. 4 of Katinsky ‘609
also shows a browsing structure in which video clips are positioned in
different levels based on a predefined criterion, and that list is created based
on monitoring user prior viewings and selections (see col. 8, ll. 61-67 – col.
9, ll. 1-3).
Claims 35, 36, 38 and 39
Appellant further argues that neither Katinsky ‘609 nor Arora ‘972
teaches or suggests the use of “a memory containing indexing information
associated with video segments of said video data, wherein the indexing
information is created based on monitoring user viewing activities of said
video data” and “a video organizer [executable on the processor] to
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

14
generate a video sequence play file of specific video segments of the video
data using the indexing information…” as defined in independent claim 35
(App. Br. 11).
Again, we disagree. Katinsky ‘609 teaches a content database 1010 to
store information about the media objects (i.e., video clips) that will be
represented by media icons (see FIG. 10, col. 9, ll. 19-24) and a sequencer
14 to generate a sequence of selected video clips to be played, via an object
player 12 (see FIG. 4, col. 4, ll. 8-18; col. 5, ll. 4-6; col. 6, ll. 1-3).
Claims 37, 48 and 49
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of
dependent claims 37, 48 and 49. As such, these claims fall with their
independent claim 35. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).
Claims 47, 50 and 53
Appellant further argues that, like Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972,
Mano ‘366 and Anwar ‘577 do not disclose “a browsing structure
contain[ing] frames representing the video segments” in which “the frames
are selected based on user printing activities,” and “the order of the specific
video segments is based on an order of selection of the frames.”
However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mano ‘366
teaches the use of a list of video clips in a browsing structure containing
video frames of video clips 55 and that the example video frames 32 can
also be selected by a user for printing purposes (col. 5, ll. 55-60; col. 6, ll.
Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

15
16-18). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Anwar ‘577
discloses the monitoring and storage of user activity data, including printing
for purposes of refining rankings in subsequent searches (col. 1, ll. 12-16;
col. 5, ll. 1-4).
Appellant’s arguments has not demonstrated why features of Mano
‘366 and Anwar ‘577 cannot be incorporated into a video managing system
of Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972. When a claimed invention “‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). We find that
incorporating the selection of frames representing video segments based on
user printing activities and the order of the specific video segments based on
an order of selection of the frames into the video managing system of
Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972 does not yield unexpected results. That is, we
hold that the mere combining of these features would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan. We do so because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
“[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420.

Appeal 2010-006016
Application 10/141,016

16
VI. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Appellant has not
shown that Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 30-39, 43-46, 48-49, and
51-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katinsky ‘609 in
view of Arora ‘972, and (2) claims 47, 50 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Katinsky ‘609 and Arora ‘972 and further in
view of Mano ‘366 and Anwar ‘577.

VII. DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 30-39
and 43-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

msc