Ex Parte Santangelo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2015

10970429 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

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.
10/970,429 10/21/2004 Bryan D. Santangelo 61575-1046 5338
27299 7590 03/27/2015
GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
EXAMINER
STRONCZER, RYAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2015 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 BRYAN D. SANTANGELO, ZHONGMING CHEN,
CRAIG MAHONCHAK, STEVE E. RIEDL,
and AMANUEL BEREKETAB
____________________

Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of
claims 1–11, 23–33, 58, 62, and 65. Claims 12–22, 34–57, 59–61, 63, and
64 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to processing
multimedia content for storage and retrieval in a broadband communications
network (Spec. 1, ll. 6–8).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for processing a program stream containing at
least one program, the at least one program including a plurality
of program segments, the method comprising: receiving the
program stream; dividing the program stream into a plurality of
blocks, each block comprising at least a portion of at least one
of the program segments; identifying at least two of the
plurality of blocks relating to a selected one of the plurality of
program segments; processing the programming content of the
at least two identified blocks; joining at least a portion of the
programming content of the at least two identified blocks to
form said selected segment, the at least a portion of the content
of a first one of said at least two identified blocks being joined
prior to completion of the processing of said first identified
block; and upon completion of said act of processing, causing
said selected segment to be made available for viewing.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:

Logan et al.
Fano et al.
Logan et al.
US 2005/0005308 A1
US 2004/0268398 A1
US 2003/0093790 A1
Jan. 6, 2005
Dec. 30, 2004
May 15, 2003

Claims 1–7, 23–29, 58, 62, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Logan ‘5308 and Fano.
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

3
Claims 8–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Logan ‘5308, Fano and Logan ‘3790.
Claims 30–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Logan ‘5308 and Logan ‘3790.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Logan ‘5308 and Fano teaches or would have
suggested a method for “processing a program stream containing at least one
program, the at least one program including a plurality of program
segments,” wherein the method comprises “dividing the program stream into
a plurality of blocks, each block comprising at least a portion of at least one
of the program segments; identifying at least two of the plurality of blocks
relating to a selected one of the plurality of program segments,” and
“joining at least a portion of the programming content… to form said
selected segment,” the blocks “being joined prior to completion of the
processing” of the first identified block (Claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Logan ‘5308
1. Logan discloses creating metadata that subdivides an original
broadcast into segments and associates descriptive information with each
segment (Abst.), wherein a segment index or guide shows segment labels
that make up the playlist (¶ 42; Fig. 1).
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

4
2. A networked Personal Video Recording (nPVR) system is
provided wherein viewing might be only partially time-shifted, such that the
game may still be in progress as the viewer begins to view the game on a
delayed basis (¶ 38).
Fano
3. Fano discloses indexing segments of a program to mark their
beginning and/or end (Abst.), wherein Figure 3 is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 3, a multimedia program is selectively reviewed
in segments according to the indexes that identify segments having content
that conforms to a user’s specification, wherein a playback unit selects only
markings of which conform to a user-specified criteria and make the
playback of the user-selected content appear to be almost seamless: as one
scene of a movie ends, another scene of the movie immediately begins, with
both scenes being of interest to the viewer (¶ 31).
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

5
IV. ANALYSIS
As for claim 1, Appellants contend, in Fano: “the sub-segment makers
merely indicate or flag an event occurring within a segment,” “Fano teaches
or suggests no mechanism for demarcating the end of the event,” and thus
“one cannot reasonably assert that the sub-segments in Fano comprise a
program segment” (App. Br. 5). Although Appellants concede “[i]n Logan
‘5308, the system divides the sports program into its respective plays using
markers which identify a start and end time of each play,” Appellants also
contend “[t]here is simply no need in Logan ‘5308 to join the programming
content of at least two identified blocks (e.g., plays) to form a selected play,
because the system in Logan ‘5308 is already designed to identify all the
programming content for the given play” (id.).
Additionally, Appellants contend “Logan ‘5308 teaches away from its
combination with any reference which discloses further dividing the
segments disclosed therein” because “[a] person of ordinary skill would be
discouraged from dividing the program in Logan ‘5308 into segments
smaller than the plays, and subsequently join them in order to form plays”
(App. Br. 6). Appellants then contend “nowhere in Logan ‘5308 is joining
of content disclosed as being accomplished prior to the completion of the
processing of one of the blocks” (App. Br. 7).
However, the Examiner notes “the claim does not positively recite
marking both the beginning and the end of each block or sub-segment” and
thus “the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected
claim(s)” (Ans. 15). Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious “that each subsequent index would represent the end of
the sub-segment begun at the previous index point” (id.).
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

6
The Examiner then finds “Logan already divides the football program
into plays in an analogous manner to Fano” and although “Logan does not
provide the benefit of sub-dividing those plays into segments corresponding
to points of interest…” the Examiner maintains that the ordinarily-skilled
artisan “would have been motivated to incorporate Fano’s sub-segments into
the system of Logan to give Logan’s viewers greater control over their
viewing experience” (Ans. 16). The Examiner points out “[o]ne cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually…” (id.).
The Examiner also points out “[t]he broadest reasonable
interpretation” of claim 1 “merely requires that at least at part of one of the
blocks be present prior to the completion of the recited processing”
(Ans. 17), and thus finds Logan’5308 discloses a “portion” of a segment
being present but an “intra-segment index has not been inserted” because
“the processing has not been completed” (Ans. 18).
We agree with the Examiner and find no error with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Although Appellants argue that “Fano teaches or suggests no
mechanism for demarcating the end of the event” (App. Br. 5), “Logan
‘5308 teaches away from its combination with any reference which discloses
further dividing the segments disclosed therein,” and that “[a] person of
ordinary skill would be discouraged from dividing the program in Logan
‘5308 into segments smaller than the plays” (App. Br. 6), such arguments
are not commensurate in scope with the recited language of the claims. In
particular, the claims do not require any “demarcating the end of the event”
or any “further” dividing of a program “into segments smaller than the
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

7
plays” (App. Br. 5–6). We agree with the Examiner that “the features upon
which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Ans. 15).
Further, Appellants arguments are directed to what Logan ‘5308 or
Fano does not individually disclose or suggest (App. Br. 5–7), but the
Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combination of Logan ‘5308
and Fano. The test for obviousness is not what the references individually
disclose, but what the combination would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). That is, as the Examiner points out, the references should be viewed
in combination (Ans. 16).
Logan ‘5308 discloses creating metadata that subdivides an original
broadcast into segments (FF 1). We find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on Logan ‘5308 for the teaching or suggestion of “processing a
program stream containing at least one program, the at least one program
including a plurality of program segments,” as claimed (Claim 1).
Furthermore, Fano discloses indexing segments of a program to mark
their beginning and end, wherein a playback unit selects only markings of
which conform to a user-specified criteria and make the playback of the
user-selected content appear to be almost seamless: as one scene of a movie
ends, another scene of the movie immediately begins, with both scenes being
of interest to the viewer (FF 3). That is, Fano discloses and suggests:
dividing a program stream into a plurality of blocks/segments (by marking
the beginning and end of the separate blocks/segments), wherein each block
comprises a segment (and thus at least a portion of the segment); identifying
blocks/segments (at least two) related to a selected criteria of interest to the
viewer; and joining the identified blocks/segments to form a program stream
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

8
showing the selected combination of scenes in a seamless manner. We find
no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Fano for disclosing or suggesting
“dividing the program stream into a plurality of blocks, each block
comprising at least a portion of at least one of the program segments ”
“identifying at least two of the plurality of blocks relating to a selected one
of the plurality of program segments” and “joining at least a portion of the
programming content … to form said selected segment,” as claimed
(Claim 1).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Logan ‘5308 and Fano teaches or at least suggests
“processing a program stream containing at least one program, the at least
one program including a plurality of program segments.” wherein the
method comprises “dividing the program stream into a plurality of blocks,
each block comprising at least a portion of at least one of the program
segments;” “identifying at least two of the plurality of blocks relating to a
selected one of the plurality of program segments;” and “joining at least a
portion of the programming content… to form said selected segment,” as
recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, in Logan ‘5308, viewing may be partially time-shifted,
such that a program may still be in progress as the viewer begins to view the
game on a delayed basis (FF 2). As the Examiner finds, Logan’5308
discloses a “portion” of a segment being present but an “intra-segment index
has not been inserted” because “the processing has not been completed”
(Ans. 18). We agree with the Examiner that Logan ‘5308 in combination
with Logan would at least have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the blocks may be joined “prior to completion of the processing” of the
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

9
first identified block (Claim 1). We find it would have been well within the
level of skill of one skilled in the art to join the blocks prior to completion of
the processing of the first block.
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can
be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled
artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding “Logan already divides the
football program into plays in an analogous manner to Fano” and although
“Logan does not provide the benefit of sub-dividing those plays into
segments corresponding to points of interest…” the ordinarily-skilled artisan
“would have been motivated to incorporate Fano’s sub-segments into the
system of Logan to give Logan’s viewers greater control over their viewing
experience” (Ans. 16). We are not persuaded, and Appellants have
presented no persuasive evidence, that combining the teachings is “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
We agree with the Examiner that the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon
reading the teachings of Fano, would have found it obvious to incorporate
Fano’s teachings of identifying and joining segments relating to a selected
criteria (FF 3) into the system of Logan ‘5308 “to give Logan’s viewers
greater control over their viewing experience” (Ans. 16). That is, Logan
‘5308 does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the identifying
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

10
and joining of related statements. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Instead, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness (Ans. 16).
Accordingly, we find Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 over Logan ‘5308 and Fano. Appellants do not provide
substantive arguments for claims 2–5 and 7 depending from claim 1 (App.
Br. 7), and thus, claims 2–5 and 7 fall with claim 1.
As for claim 6, although Appellants contend “Logan ‘5308 does not in
any way disclose that a first and second play are related in any way” (App.
8), we agree with the Examiner’s finding “Logan necessarily identifies all of
the content comprising the segment and appends it together to transmit the
selected segment to the user” (Ans. 18), and that “blocks taught by Fano are
necessarily logically associated [i.e., related] with each other” (Ans. 18–19).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Logan ‘5308 and Fano teaches or at least suggests the claimed features of
claim 6.
Appellants merely repeat the arguments for claim 1 with respect to
claim 23, which recites similar features (App. Br. 8–9). As discussed above
with respect to claim 1, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of the
claims over Logan ‘5308 and Fano, and thus, also find no error with the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 over Logan ‘5308 and Fano.
As for claims 24 and 65, although Appellants contend “a portion of a
play in Logan ‘5308 cannot be viewed until the play is complete” (App.
Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Logan teaches an nPVR
system in which a portion of the entire program (e.g., the game) is made
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

11
available to the user before the entire program has been broadcast” (Ans. 19;
FF 2).
Accordingly, we find Appellants also have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 24 and 65 over Logan ‘5308 and Fano. Appellants
do not provide substantive arguments for claims 25–27 and 29 depending
from claim 23 (App. Br. 10), and thus, claims 25–27 and 29 fall with
claim 23.
As for claim 28, although Appellants repeat the contention that
“Logan ‘5308 does not in any way teach or suggest determining that a first
and second play are related in any way” (App. Br. 11), we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Logan ‘5308 and Fano discloses and
suggests such limitation (Ans. 20–21; FF 2).
As for claim 58, although Appellants contend “Logan ‘5308 does not
disclose dividing the stream into the plurality of plays at predetermined
intervals” (App. Br. 11), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Logan
‘5308 discloses or suggests dividing a program streams, wherein “in the
example of a football game, on a quarter-by-quarter basis” whereby “the
lengths of individual quarters are predetermined” (Ans. 21).
As for claim 62, Appellants contend that neither Logan ‘5308 nor
Fano discloses “responsive to receiving the request, generating at least two
blocks from the stored duplicate” (App. Br. 12). However, as the Examiner
points out, “Claim 62 does not require that the data identifying the division
of the segment into blocks be generated at the time of the user request, only
that the duplicate program data be generated for transmission to the user at
the time of the request” (Ans. 22). We agree with the Examiner’s finding
“Logan explicitly teaches that the system is implemented via an nPVR
Appeal 2013-000186
Application 10/970,429

12
platform, wherein the content [is] stored at a network headend prior to being
distributed to a plurality of client devices” which “requires that the duplicate
program streams would be generated at the time that the content was
requested by the user” (id.).
Accordingly, we find Appellants also have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 28, 58, and 62 over Logan ‘5308 and Fano.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 8–11, and 30–33
depending respectively from claims 1 and 23 (App. Br. 13). Thus, we also
affirm the rejection of claims 8–11 over Logan ‘5308 and Fano, in further
view of Logan ‘3790; and the rejection of claims 30–33 over Logan ‘5308
and Logan ‘3790.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 23–33, 58, 62,
and 65 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).

AFFIRMED
ACP