Ex Parte Roveta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

14073683 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
14/073,683 11/06/2013 Nicholas Roveta 10587.0910-00000 5138
100692 7590
Oath Inc./Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
08/25/2017 EXAMINER
MCCULLEY, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
regional-desk @ finnegan. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS ROVETA, LEON FARRELL, and
ALEXANDER MARSHALL
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application is directed to “a method . . . that
comprises obtaining playlist data identifying an element of video content
and one or more elements of overlay content and generating augmented
video content in accordance with the obtained playlist data.” Specification
1 6, filed November 6, 2013 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 12, and 20 are
independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining playlist data identifying an element of video
content and one or more elements of overlay content, the playlist
data and one or more elements of overlay content being linked
by a common alphanumeric identifier;
generating, using at least one processor, augmented video
content in accordance with the obtained playlist data, the
generating comprising parsing the playlist data to identify the
common alphanumeric identifier, retrieving from memory the
one or more overlay content elements based on the common
alphanumeric identifier, and merging a first one of the overlay
content elements into the video content element at a temporal
position within the video content element defined by the playlist
data;
generating one or more electronic instructions to present
the augmented video content to a viewer;
detecting at least one of a first triggering event or a second
triggering event during the presentation of the augmented video
content, the first triggering event being associated with an
expiration of the first overlay content element, and the second
triggering event being associated with a merger of a second one
of the overlay content elements into the video content element;
and
generating, using the at least one processor, modified
augmented video content in response to the detected first or
second triggering event.
2
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 7—10, 12—14, 16—18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 2012/0044250 Al;
Feb. 23, 2001) (“Landers”) and Cope et al. (US 2009/0022473 Al;
Jan. 22, 2009) (“Cope”). Final Office Action 2—7, mailed Feb. 11, 2016
(“Final Act.”).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Landers, Cope, and Gardner et al. (US 2008/0319852 Al;
Dec. 25, 2008) (“Gardner”). Final Act. 7—9.
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Landers, Cope, and Copertino et al. (US 2012/0331496
Al; Dec. 27, 2012) (“Copertino”). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner errs. To the
extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the appealed action, the
Advisory Action, and the Examiner’s Answer. Appellants have waived
arguments Appellants failed to timely raise or properly develop. See 37
C.F.R. §§41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Appellants contend Cope does not teach or suggest “playlist data” or
“a common alphanumeric identifier,” let alone “playlist data and one or
more elements of overlay content being linked by a common alphanumeric
identifier,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 12—14, filed August 15, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief 3—6, filed January 30, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). With
3
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
respect to “playlist data,” Appellants argue paragraph 116 of Cope shows
that Cope’s video content directory is not “playlist data.” App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 5. Appellants further argue “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would not confuse a ‘video-content directory’ with a ‘playlist.’” Reply
Br. 5. As for “a common alphanumeric identifier,” Appellants assert Cope’s
overlay directory includes discrete or separate identifiers that are not
“common” to “playlist data and one or more elements of overlay content.”
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. Appellants further assert that Cope’s video-signal
identifier is only used with respect to a video content directory, which is not
“playlist data.” Reply Br. 6.
Whether Cope teaches or suggests the disputed limitation turns on the
meaning of “playlist data” and “a common alphanumeric identifier.” As is
relevant here, claim 1 recites “playlist data identifying an element of video
content and one or more elements of overlay content, the playlist data and
one or more elements of overlay content being linked by a common
alphanumeric identifier” and “parsing the playlist data to identify the
common alphanumeric identifier.” App. Br. 18. Claim 1 also recites
“merging a first one of the overlay content elements into the video content
element at a temporal position within the video content element defined by
the playlist data.” App. Br. 18. Thus, according to the claim 1, “playlist
data” encompasses data that (1) identifies video content, overlay content,
and a common alphanumeric identifier and (2) defines a temporal position
within the video content. As for “a common alphanumeric identifier,” claim
1 makes clear that “a common alphanumeric identifier” is an alphanumeric
identifier that links playlist data and one or more elements of overlay
content. App. Br. 18.
4
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
The written description describes “playlist data” and “a common
alphanumeric identifier” in a similar fashion. For example, the written
description explains “playlist data may identify the overlay content and
underlying video content that collectively establish the augmented video
content, and further, may define one or more parameters or settings that
facilitate the merger of the overlay content into the underlying video
content.” Spec. 1 5. With respect to “a common alphanumeric identifier,”
the written description explains that “server 132 may assign the playlist file
and Flash video a common alphanumeric string” where “the playlist file and
Flash video .... correspond^ to the underlying video content, the layered
overlay content, and the one or more settings.” Spec. 1 85. We therefore
conclude “playlist data” includes data that (1) identifies video content,
overlay content, and a common alphanumeric identifier and (2) defines a
temporal position within the video content. We also conclude “a common
alphanumeric identifier” encompasses an alphanumeric identifier that links
playlist data and one or more elements of overlay content.
The Examiner finds Cope’s overlay directories and video-signal
identifiers respectively suggest such “playlist data” and “a common
alphanumeric identifier.” See Answer 3—5, mailed November 29, 2016
(“Ans.”). Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Cope’s Figure 14 illustrates a video-content directory 540 that includes an
5
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
overlay directory 1440:
Video-Content Directory 540
1412
Video-signal
identifier
iiifi
Identifiers of
Tracked objects
Mil
Coordinates of tracked objects
1420
__________ \
■
Video-001
t
■
Object-Ui) .....|.....1..... + **» [
• |
Object-528 j ] »**# [
Object- 809 1 1 ] ft * * ft [
""S
1410 **
•
*
> I
! 1420
| Overlay Directory of Video-92
! 1440 ) 420
42,
Vide o-0i)2
Object-008 ftftftft
Ohjeci-'SKti »« « •
Objeet-528 ♦ ft#*
Oh jeer-640 • «»»
Object-545 • ftftft ?
.......... '•*-----------1.............................. :.............. ........... ............................ .. .......... .......... ............. -
• ; • 1420
* > !* 1
Figure 14 of Cope
Figure 14 of Cope “illustrates an exemplary video-content directory
maintained by a video overlay server and comprising overlay directories for
a plurality of video signals.” Cope 155. Cope explains that the “[vjideo-
content directory 540 includes an overlay directory 1440 (also called a
content directory 1440) for each video signal (video recording) in list 434”
and “[e]ach overlay directory (content directory) contains a video-signal
identifier (video-recording identifier) 1412, a set 1416 of identifiers of
objects tracked in a display of a respective video signal, and a matrix 1418
of coordinates . . . corresponding to the video signal.” Cope 1116
(emphases omitted).
As found by the Examiner, Cope’s overlay directories are “playlist
data” because the directories identify a list of video signals/recordings for
playback (“an element of video content”) and tracked objects to be overlaid
6
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
on a corresponding video signal/recording (“one or more elements of
overlay content”). See Final Act. 4 (citing Cope Fig. 14, H 116, 208). The
overlay directories also define temporal positions within the video content
because the directories include “pointing times” for the tracked objects, each
time corresponding to a time in the video signal. See, e.g., Cope 1103 (“The
pointing time entered in the overlay record is the time of appearance of the
selected point in a continuous . . . display of the video signal. ... the
pointing time ... is entered in the overlay directory.”), Fig. 15 (showing an
overlay directory that includes tracking data); see also Cope Abstract (“An
overlay directory for a video recording indicates temporal and spatial
coordinates of images of selected objects.”).
Cope’s overlay directories include video-signal identifier 1412, and as
found by the Examiner, this identifier satisfies the recited “common
alphanumeric identifier.” The identifier links an overlay directory (“playlist
data”) to tracked objects to be overlaid on a corresponding video
signal/recording (“one or more elements of overlay content”). For example,
as shown in Figure 14, video-signal identifier “Video-092” is an
alphanumeric identifier that links overlay directory “Overlay Directory of
Video-92” to tracked objects “Object-008,” “Object-086,” “Object-528,”
“Object-640,” and “Object-645.” See also Cope 1116 (“Directory 540
illustrates two overlay directories 1440 corresponding to video signals
identified as Video-001 and video-092.”). Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, Cope’s disclosure of additional video-signal identifiers and
tracked object identifiers does not negate Cope’s teaching that a particular
video-signal identifier is a common alphanumeric identifier for both a
requested video signal and its corresponding tracked objects. See Ans. 3^4.
7
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
In view of the foregoing, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded
us the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Landers and Cope
teaches or suggests “playlist data and one or more elements of overlay
content being linked by a common alphanumeric identifier” as recited in
claim 1.
Appellants further contend the Examiner errs in finding Cope teaches
or suggests “parsing the playlist data to identity a common alphanumeric
identifier,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12—14; Reply Br. 6. Appellants
argue that instead of “parsing” in the manner required by claim 1, “Cope’s
video content directory 540 serves as a look-up directory to identity objects
(the asserted ‘overlay content’) associated with video-001 (the asserted
‘common identifier’).” App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner finds,
among other things, Cope teaches or suggests receiving the video signal
identifier of a particular video signal/recording and using the video signal
identifier to retrieve the overlay directory that corresponds to the video
signal identifier. See Advisory Action 2, mailed May 23, 2016 (“Adv.
Act.”); Ans. 5 (“Fig. 18 illustrates how the common video signal identifier is
used to retrieve the associated overlay objects from the playlist illustrated in
Fig. 14.”); see also Cope Fig. 18, items 1820-28. The Examiner explains
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Cope’s video signal
identifier is being used to locate things in the overlay directories, for
example, the video signal/recording and its corresponding tracked objects.
See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2 (“All of Landers, Cope, and the instant invention are
directed to media players for displaying video content augmented with
overlay elements. This characterization is not in contention.”).
8
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
In rejecting the “parsing” limitation, the Examiner also cites
paragraph 145 of Cope, which discloses a viewing computer sending a
request to the overlay server to acquire a video recording, and in response,
the overlay server sending an overlay directory corresponding to the
requested video recording. Cope 1145; see also Cope 1122 (describing the
process of retrieving an overlay directory that corresponds to a specific
video signal that is shown in Figure 18). Similarly, the specification
discloses an embodiment in which a media player transmits a request for
playlist data including a video ID associated with augmented video content
and a server retrieves playlist data corresponding to the video ID. Compare
Spec. 137, with Cope 122, 145; Fig. 18.
We agree with the Examiner that given Cope’s disclosures, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that Cope’s overlay server is
parsing overlay directories to identify the overlay directory that has the same
video-signal identifier as the requested video signal/recording. See KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (explaining that an
obviousness analysis “can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web
Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding
that an obviousness analysis “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and
common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not
necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that “parsing the playlist data to
identify the common alphanumeric identifier” would have been obvious in
view of Cope. Notably, the Examiner’s findings are consistent with
Appellants’ specification, which does not provide a limiting definition of
9
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
“parsing,” but merely provides non-limiting examples of the term. See, e.g.,
Spec. 38, 60.
In addition, although Appellants argue Cope merely teaches a “look­
up directory to identity objects (the asserted ‘overlay content’) associated
with video-001 (the asserted ‘common identifier’),” we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants have not established a meaningful distinction
between the purported “look-up directory” of Cope and the claimed
“parsing” limitation. App. Br. 13. As the Examiner explains,
[i]n both the instant invention and Cope, the common
alphanumeric identifier is used to locate playlist data and extract
associated overlay objects. Absent any redefinition of the word
‘parse’ in the instant specification, the argument that the look-up
action in Cope is ‘looking-up’ data while the same look-up action
in the instant claims is ‘parsing’ data is unpersuasive.
Ans. 4.
Lastly, without any further explanation, Appellants argue Landers and
Cope fail to teach or suggest “retrieving from memory the one or more
overlay contents based on the common alphanumeric identifier” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3. We find this conclusory argument
unpersuasive because Appellants have not adequately explained why
Landers and Cope do not disclose or suggest this limitation. Cf. 37 C.L.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 L.3d 1349, 1357 (Led. Cir. 2011)
(explaining an appellant must advance substantive arguments beyond mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art).
Lor the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the rejections of
10
Appeal 2017-004904
Application 14/073,683
independent claims 12, and 20 and dependent claims 2—11 and 13—19, which
were not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments
advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 6—7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1—20.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11