Ex Parte SanGiovanni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

13829668 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
13/829,668 03/14/2013 John SanGiovanni ZMBP.P0021US/11306957 7122
29053 7590 01/02/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
BAIG, SAHAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2018 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN SANGIOVANNI,
BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON, and BEN PAINTER
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,6681
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Zumobi, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,668
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “displaying content
on a computing device, and more specifically to providing for adaptive
sizing of displayed third party content.” Spec. 1 1.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation emphasized.
1. A method comprising:
providing a plurality of displayable elements configured to
be displayed as third party content in a specified area of a display
area having a primary content portion and a third party content
portion, wherein said specified area corresponds to said third
party content portion;
configuring, by a processing device, the plurality of
displayable elements to each utilize a portion of the specified
area of the display area according to pre-determined conditions;
and
configuring the plurality of displayable elements to
dynamically adjust within the specified area upon a change in
size of the specified area, wherein a first displayable element of
said plurality of displayable elements displayed as third party
content in the specified area is configured to adjust in a different
manner than a second displayable element of said plurality of
displayable elements displayed as third party content in the
specified area.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1—5, 7—10, 12—15, and 17—19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by McCoy (US 2014/0139736 Al,
May 22, 2014). Final Act. 2—5.
2
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,668
2. Claim 6, 11, 16, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McCoy and Phan (US 2014/0052546, Feb. 20,
2014 ). Final Act. 5—9.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds McCoy discloses the limitations of claim 1,
including the disputed limitation requiring that a first displayable element be
configured to adjust in a different manner than a second displayable element.
Final Act. 3 (citing McCoy Tflf 23, 25—27, 76). With respect to the disputed
limitation, the Examiner finds McCoy discloses
that a rule corresponds to one or more conditions or events that
determine a manner of utilization of a consolidated region. The
one or more rules determine size and location of the consolidated
region associated with second content. The one or more rules
may further determine importance of the second content in
comparison to a first content. The one or more rules may
determine whether to scale down size of a first content region if
no consolidated region is associated with a second content. The
one or more rules are defined in real-time and can change
dynamically based on a variety of factors, such as a first set of
parameters associated with a user associated with the signal­
processing device or a second set of parameters associated with
a content provider associated with the first content. The one or
more rules can change dynamically based on other factors such
as metadata associated with the first content or the second
content.
Ans. 10-11 (citing McCoy 127)
Appellants argue “McCoy merely discloses that one display region
may become smaller as another display region becomes larger, even though
a size of the total display area remains unchanged.” App. Br. 6. According
to Appellants, “McCoy does not disclose that two or more display elements
3
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,668
within McCoy’s consolidated region adjust differently when size of
McCoy’s consolidated region changes.”
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. McCoy discloses a
display with a first content region that displays first content and a
consolidated region that displays second content. McCoy 23—26. The
first content can include live video such as a movie, television program and
the like. McCoy 123. The second content includes content additional to the
first content, such as text, graphics, closed captions, and advertisements.
McCoy 126. McCoy discloses rules “that determine a manner of utilization
of a consolidated region.” McCoy 127. These rules are what the Examiner
relies upon as disclosing that a first display element is configured to be
adjusted in a different manner than a second display element. See Ans. 10-
11.
However, we agree with Appellants that these rules, as far as they
disclose adjustments, pertain to the regions disclosed in McCoy (e.g., the
first content region and the consolidated region), not to the content
(displayable elements) displayed within the regions. For example, the rules
may “determine size and location of the consolidated region associated with
second content.” McCoy 127 (emphasis added). The rules “may determine
whether to scale down size of a first content region if no consolidated region
is associated with a second content,” or they may “scale down size of the
first content region if the second content is more important than the first
content and scale up the size of the first content region if second content
requires a smaller consolidated region.” McCoy 127 (emphases added).
Nothing in this disclosure pertains to adjusting the content elements
within the regions differently than other content elements. Rather they
4
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,668
pertain to adjusting the regions themselves. The fact that the rules “can
change dynamically based on a variety of factors” does not explicitly or
inherently disclose adjusting content elements differently than other content
elements as would be required for an anticipation rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1 and of independent claim 12, which contains
limitations of commensurate scope and was rejected on substantially the
same basis. See Final Act. 3. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—11, and 13—20, which depend from claims
1 and 12 respectively and were rejected by relying on the same findings
regarding McCoy as independent claims 1 and 12. See Final Act. 3—9.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of displayable
elements, when displayed, includes an overlapping item which is configured
to alter the placement of the overlapping item with respect to the displayed
element in a pre-determined manner in response to a change in the specified
area.” The Examiner finds McCoy teaches this limitation. Final Act. 7
(citing McCoy 199); see also Ans. 14 (citing McCoy H 99, 108, and 109).
Appellants argue “McCoy actually discloses display regions, and
McCoy is silent as to overlapping instances of second content within
McCoy’s consolidated region.” App. Br. 10.
We agree with Appellants for the same reasons as explained above
with respect to claim 1. McCoy teaches a “scaled-up first content region”
and “a reduced consolidated region.'” McCoy 199 (emphases added).
Similarly, McCoy teaches “the signal manager 134 increases size of the
scaled-up first content region 514 to such an extent that the scaled-up first
5
Appeal 2017-006499
Application 13/829,668
content region 514 covers the entire output video signal 500g. In such a
case, no consolidated region will appear in the output video signal 500g”
(emphases added). McCoy 1109. To the extent the Examiner is relying on
these portions of McCoy, we agree with the Examiner that McCoy’s
description of overlapping items pertains to the first content region and the
consolidated region, not to the claimed displayable elements.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 21. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 22—24, which depend from claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 are reversed.
REVERSED
6