Ex Parte Pino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12728681 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121728,681 03/22/2010
90042 7590 04/29/2016
MANELLI SELTER PLLC
2000 M Street, N.W., 7th Floor
Washington DC, DC 20036-3307
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Angelo J. Pino JR.
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.
95630-PIN0-101 5818
EXAMINER
TRINH, TUNG THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
melcher@mdslaw.com
jeffmelcher@comcast.net
jsgueo@mdslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ANGELO J. PINO, JR. and MOHAMMED SATTAR
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13, and 15-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 3, 12, and 14 are canceled. See App. Br. (Claims App'x) 16,
18.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
"The present invention generally relates to processing video data, and
more particularly, to ... processing, searching, sorting[,] and rating video
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
content." See Spec. i12. Claims 1, 13, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method, implemented at least in part by a computer
system, for processing video content, comprising:
processing audio portions of a plurality of video content
units to create a transcript for each of the plurality of video
content units that comprises a textual representation of the
dialogue of each video content unit, wherein said processing
comprises extracting one of closed caption data and embedded
video text from the plurality of video content units;
storing a transcript in memory for each of the plurality of
video contents;
receiving a search request comprising one or more
keywords originating from a user;
searching at least some of a plurality of transcripts stored
in memory for the one or more keywords;
identifying search results that comprises a set of video
content units having transcripts that satisfy a similarity threshold
with the search request;
transmitting at least a portion of the search results to a
remote device for presentation to the user; and
selecting an advertisement based, at least in part, on the
one or more keywords; and
transmitting the advertisement for display to the user.
See App. Br. 16.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wactlar et al. (US 5,835,667;
issued Nov. 10, 1998) ("Wactlar") and Li et al. (US 2006/0212897 Al;
published Sept. 21, 2006) ("Li"). See Final Act. 3-14.
2
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
Claims 9, 16-19, 24, and 29--31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Wactlar, Li, and Park et al. (US 2008/0126303
Al; published May 29, 2008) ("Park"). See id. at 14--18.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wactlar, Li, and Gross et al. (US 2006/0248078 Al; published Nov. 2,
2006) ("Gross"). See id. at 18-19.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wactlar, Li, and Howe et al. (US 2008/0033806 Al; published Feb. 7,
2008) ("Howe"). See id. at 19--20.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 15-22, 24-26, and 29-31
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding "selecting an
advertisement based, at least in part, on the one or more keywords," as
recited in claim 1, to be taught by W actlar and Li, because "Li does not
teach using search request keyword from a user to select an advertisement."
App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants explain "[i]n contrast, Li clearly
teaches to select an advertisement based on keywords associated with the
original audio/video stream, not a keyword originating from a user." App.
Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because they attack the
references separately, when the Examiner relies on a combination of
references. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). As pointed out
by the Examiner, the Examiner finds Wactlar teaches "receiving a search
3
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
request comprising one or more keywords originating from a user." See
Ans. 3 (citing Wactlar col. 14, 11. 41-55; col. 16, 11. 14--15); Final Act. 4.
The Examiner further finds Li teaches "selecting an advertisement based, at
least in part, on ... one or more keywords" as recited in claim 1. See Final
Act. 5 (citing Li i-fi-158, 77-78; Figs. 3A-B). In other words, the Examiner
relies on Li to teach selecting an advertisement based on keywords, and on
Wactlar to teach that the keywords originate from a user. Moreover, the
Examiner finds, and Appellants do not persuasively rebut, that Li's method
of selecting an advertisement based on one or more keywords could have
been implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a module in
Wactlar's system. See Ans. 3; Final Act. 4--5; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants further contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not
be motivated to combine Wactlar's searchable digital library with Li's
method of analyzing audio/video files to retrieve relevant advertising
because Wactlar provides no disclosure relating to advertising. See App. Br.
7. We are unpersuaded of error.
Contrary to Appellants' contention, the simple fact that there are
differences between Wactlar and Li is insufficient to establish that the
teachings of such references are not combinable. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes "it
would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was
made to modify Wactlar' s teaching [to] includ[ e] Li's teaching in order to
facilitate revenue from advertising." See Final Act. 5; Ans. 2. Further, the
Examiner's reason to combine Wactlar with Li has explicit support in the
cited prior art. See Final Act. 5; Li i139 ("Advertising content for display on
an appropriate viewing device is selected ... such that revenue to the
4
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
advertising content provider ... is maximized."). Accordingly, we
conclude the Examiner has provided "'some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,"'
which Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Lastly, Appellants contend Wactlar and Li are related to speech
recognition, in contrast with Appellants' claimed invention, which utilizes a
keyword entered by a user to determine advertising. See App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 1. In other words, Appellants contend Wactlar and Li are non-analogous
art. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1. We are unpersuaded of error.
Contrary to Appellants' contention, Wactlar, Li, and Appellants'
invention all disclose software that converts audio to text. See Ans. 3;
Wactlar col. 1, 11. 6-11; Li i-fi-155, 60; Spec. i124 ("In addition, the data
processor 102 may also access live video content (e.g., received via a
satellite receiver or other source) to convert the audio content to a transcript
for storage."). Moreover, each of Wactlar, Li, and Appellants' inventions
are concerned with the problem of facilitating the search of audio/video
content. See Wactlar col. 2, 11. 1-3, 17--64; Li i-fi-16-7; Spec. i-f 6 ("[T]here
exists a need for a system ... that facilitates searching of the audio content
of a plurality of video content units"). Accordingly, we find Wactlar and Li
are analogous art at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which Appellants are involved. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d
1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For the reasons discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as well
5
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
as claims 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 25, and 26, which Appellants argue
as standing or falling together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 5). We also
sustain the rejection of claims 9, 16-19, 22, 24, and 29--31 for the same
reasons as for claim 1 because Appellants do not present separate arguments
for these claims. See generally App. Br. 12-13.
Claims 4 and 5
Appellants contend Wactlar' s user workstation that is connected to the
internet does not teach or suggest a cable or satellite television "set-top box,"
as recited in claim 4. See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded of
error. Regardless of whether Wactlar's user workstation is a "set-top box,"
we agree with the Examiner that implementing a computer system as a "set-
top box" is old and well known in the art, as evidenced by Li. See Ans. 4;
Li i-f 23 ("Examples of well known computing systems ... that may be
suitable for use with the invention ... include ... set top boxes).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, as well as
claim 5, which depends from claim 4 and was not argued separately with
particularity. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5.
Claim 23
The Examiner finds Wactlar video-on-demand system teaches "a pay
per view video content unit," as recited in claim 23. See Final Act. 11
(citing Wactlar col. 16, 11. 44--53); Ans. 4. Appellants contend "Wactlar
only teaches receiving 'video-on-demand' from the internet, which is
different from the claimed 'pay per view."' App. Br. 1 O; see Reply Br. 5---6.
We are unpersuaded of error because Appellants merely assert without
6
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
substantive evidence or explanation how Wactlar' s video-on-demand system
differs from a pay per view video content unit, as claimed. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this [Board] to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art."). Although we find Appellants' argument
unpersuasive for this reason, we further find that Wactlar's video-on-
demand system is at least suggestive of a pay per view video content unit, as
claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
Claims 2 7 and 2 8
The Examiner relies on Wactlar's system, which enables a user to
enter a text query through a keyboard, to teach "receiving a plurality of
textual characters," as recited in claim 27. See Final Act. 13 (citing Wactlar
col. 14, 11. 52-55). The Examiner also relies on Wactlar's system, which
generates a set ofN-best hypotheses for an utterance, to teach or suggest
"after receiving each character of a group of the textual characters,
displaying a plurality of suggested keywords" as further recited in claim 27.
See Final Act. 13 (citing Wactlar col. 8, 11. 40-53). Appellants contend the
Examiner erred because "the alleged suggested keyword in Wactlar is based
on an utterance (audio transcript) and not based on a textual, user inputted
keyword." App. Br. 10-11. In response, the Examiner explains (1) Wactlar
is directed to both audio and textual inputs, (2) the audio input is converted
to an audio transcription in text format, and (3) the process of generating a
set ofN-best hypotheses also applies to textual inputs. See Ans. 4.
7
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
We are unpersuaded of error. Consistent with the Examiner's
findings, we find that generating the N-best hypotheses for an incomplete
audio input (i.e., utterance), while converting that audio input to text, would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill the generating of suggestions (i.e.,
complete textual inputs) for an incomplete textual input. See Wactlar col.
14, 11. 52-55; col. 8, 11. 40-53; Ans. 4. Although we find Appellants'
argument unpersuasive for this reason, we note that "displaying a plurality
of suggested keywords" as claimed is an old and well-known technique in
the art, as evidenced. e.g., by Park. See Park i-f 84 ("When a query comes
from a user, the web analyzer may submit the query to the search
technology, e.g., Yahoo Search Technology, to check for typo and get query
suggestions"). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27
as well as claim 28, which depends from claim 27 and was not argued
separately with particularity. See App. Br. 11.
Claim 32
Appellants contend although Howe teaches transmitting a first
advertisement, Howe does not teach "transmitting additional information to
the remote device related to a product or service advertised in the first
advertisement," as recited in claim 32. See App. Br. 14. We disagree. As
the Examiner finds, in response to a user clicking or hovering over an
advertising message thumbnail ("first advertisement"), Howe displays an
advertising message associated with the thumbnail, which teaches
"transmitting additional information to the remote device related to a
product or service advertised in the first advertisement." See Ans. 5-6
8
Appeal2014-007494
Application 12/728,681
(citing Howe il 28). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 32.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13, and 15-
3 2 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)(l ).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9