Ex Parte Sellers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

12486214 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/486,214 06/17/2009 Scott D. Sellers
26227 7590 04/18/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-6221001 4718
EXAMINER
SCHNURR, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT D. SELLERS and CHRISTOPHER S. DELSORDO
Appeal2014-006404 1
Application 12/486,214
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which consist all of the claims
pending in this appeal. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility LLC.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
Appellants' Invention
Appellants invent a method and system for inserting recorded content
(e.g., advertisement) (122) into a digital video (120) during the playback
thereof at a presentation device ( 108). Spec. i-f 1, Fig. 1. In particular, upon
detecting the location of a splice mark in the recorded content (122), a
timing and insertion module (160) in a set top box (104) creates an
associated insertion content change record (CCR) including an indicator
value (e.g., file offset, presentation time stamp value) for each of a plurality
of different locations in the digital video where the recorded content can be
inserted. Id. i-fi-1 65, 68.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a digital video service set top
box system for playback of digital video content, the method
compnsmg:
initiating playback of a first digital video file that conveys
first video content;
accessing a locally stored second digital video file that is
different than and distinct from the first digital video file, the
second digital video file conveying second video content;
creating an insertion content change record (CCR)
associated with the second digital video file based on detected
splice marks in the second digital video file,
accessing the insertion CCR associated with the second
digital video file, the insertion CCR comprising at least one
indicator value selected from a group consisting of a file offset
value and a presentation time stamp (PTS) value, wherein the
indicator value enables location of a frame-accurate transition
point in the secondary video content;
2
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
during playback of the first digital video file, determining
that the second video content is to be inserted into the first video
content; and
in response to the determining step, using the indicator
value to locate a beginning video frame of the second digital
video file, and transitioning from a transition video frame of the
first digital video file to the beginning video frame of the second
digital video file.
Dow
Lee
Agarwal
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0221311 Al
US 2008/0106544 Al
US 2010/0251289 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Nov. 4, 2004
May 8, 2010
Sept. 30, 2010
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Agarwal and Dow.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Agarwal, Dow, and Lee.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 11-27, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-5.2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 22, 2014) ("App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed May 7, 2014) ("Reply Br."), the Final Office Action (mailed July
22, 2013) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 7,
2014) ("Ans.") for their respective details. We have considered in this
3
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
Appellants argue the combination of Agarwal and Dow does not teach
or suggest creating content change records based on splice marks detected in
a second digital video, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-15. In particular,
Appellants argue Dow relates to a content-based index that defines segments
within a video presentation to assist with the navigation thereof. App. Br.
12. According to Appellants, Dow's content-based index is a tool for
navigating a primary video content, as opposed to a secondary video content.
Id. This argument is not persuasive because it is tantamount to an individual
attack against the combination of Agarwal and Dow. As correctly noted by
the Examiner, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations thereof. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Ans. 2-3.
Agarwal discloses a splicing and insertion engine, upon detecting the
slice points in an advertisement content, interacts with a processing engine
to insert the ad into a video stream in locations indicated by markers.
Agarwal i-fi-136, 62. Further, Dow discloses a commercial indexer for
inserting into a video content an index file including pointers for indicating
the program start, and end locations thereby providing a time-based index to
facilitate navigating the video content. Dow i-fi-136, 62. Although the
insertion of the index file is disclosed with respect to a video stream, it is not
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
restricted exclusively to such video content. Instead, one of ordinary skill in
the art would readily appreciate that Dow's teaching of inserting the index
file pertains to all video content (including video stream and advertisement
alike) as a way to help navigate the video content. Consequently, we agree
with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Agarwal and Dow would
predictably result in creating a file index containing pointers corresponding
to start and end locations inserted in an advertisement content based on the
splice points thereof, to thereby help navigate the advertisement content.
Ans. 3. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Agarwal and Dow teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Appellants argue because Agarwal
teaches stored ads having closed groups of pictures (GOPs), Agarwal
teaches GOPs associated with a second video file, and thereby does not
teach transitioning from a GOPs associated with the first video file to a
beginning GOPs associated with the second video file. App. Br. 16. In
response, the Examiner finds because the closed GOPs is used in an IDR
frame, which is the first frame in the closed GOPs, one or ordinary skill
would understand that the first GOPs of the Ad is inserted after the last
GOPs of the video stream. Therefore, Agarwal teaches a transition between
the last GOPs of the video stream and the first GOPs of the Ad. Final Act.
4--5, Ans. 3. We note Appellants have not responded to this specific
analysis of Agarwal' s disclosure as set forth by the Examiner.
5
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 7.
Regarding the rejection of claims 10, Appellants argue neither
Agarwal nor Dow teaches using presentation timestamp (PTS) values.
According to Appellants, although Dow discloses a time-base index of a
video program content, it does not include PTS values. App. Br. 17. This
argument is not persuasive. Although Appellants argue that Dow's
disclosure of inserting timestamps in video contents does not teach the PTS
values, Appellants have not explained how they are different. Nor have
Appellants addressed the Examiner's finding that Dow's disclosure of
monitoring such timestamp values taken in combination with Agarwal' s
disclosure of the markers teaches such limitations. Ans. 3. Therefore,
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-20,
because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claims 1, 7, and 10 above, claims 2-
6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013).
Regarding the rejection of claim 14, Appellants argue because Lee's
disclosure of playing back programming content in a trick mode does not
teach replacing an advertisement in a primary video file with another
advertisement of different duration, Lee does not cure the noted deficiencies
of Agarwal and Dow. App. Br. 21-23, Reply Br. 3-5 (citing Lee i-f 25).
6
Appeal2014-006404
Application 12/486,214
This argument is persuasive. Lee discloses when the video is being played
back in the trick mode, it has a faster speed than the normal playback speed
such that the portions thereof are less than the entire advertisement. Lee if
25. At best, Lee teaches when the video is being played back in different
modes (trick mode vs. normal mode) it may have a different duration.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner that playing the same video in
different modes somehow teaches replacing the video with another video.
We, therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-20, as set
forth above. However, we reverse the rejection of claim 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7