null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2019

14726110 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2019)

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.
14/726,110 05/29/2015 FANG LIU P5252/39913.225889 1693
121363 7590 11/18/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
EXAMINER
DANG, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2019 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):
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
seaton@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FANG LIU and PEIYING HUO
____________

Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25, all the pending claims in the
present application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ADOBE
SYSTEMS INCORPORATED. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

2
Appellant’s invention relates to “providing video scrubbing based on
a thumbnail video player feature.” Spec. ¶ 3.2 According to Appellant, “[a]
thumbnail video player refers to a video player that is generated to facilitate
video scrubbing.” Spec. ¶ 14. “In particular, the thumbnail video player
plays back continuous and uninterrupted thumbnail video based on a video
player platform. Advantageously, the thumbnail video can be played back
adjacent to a timeline as a user traverses the timeline to locate a portion of
video content.” Id.

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 4 are
exemplary and are reproduced below with limitations at issue italicized.
1. One or more computer storage media having
computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when
executed, by one or more processors, causes the one or more
processors to perform a method for providing video scrubbing
using thumbnail players, the method comprising:
accessing a video player package, the video player
package comprising a play list having variants, wherein a video
content variant of the variants is accessible by a first video
player for a video player feature, and wherein a thumbnail
video variant of the variants is accessible by a second video
player for a thumbnail video player feature;
generating the first video player as a video player for
accessing video content using the video content variant, based
on the playlist having the video content variant, wherein the

2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed May
29, 2015; (2) the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed
October 18, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 1, 2018;
and (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 27, 2018; and
(5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 15, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

3
video player is configured to access the video content variant
and the thumbnail video variant;
receiving an indication to review the video content; and
generating the second video player as a thumbnail video
player, different from the video player, for accessing thumbnail
video using the thumbnail video variant, based on the playlist
having the thumbnail video variant, wherein the thumbnail
video player is configured to access the video content variant
and the thumbnail video variant.

4. The media of claim 1, wherein the thumbnail video
player is implemented with an adaptive bit rate (ABR) policy
that instructs the thumbnail video player to exclusively access
thumbnail video variants in the playlist.

Appeal Br. 15, 16 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES
The Examiner rejects claims 1–22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Yamada et al. (US 2008/0292267 A1, published Nov. 27,
2008) (“Yamada”) and Chauvier et al. (US 2013/0071095 A1, published
Mar. 21, 2013) (“Chauvier”). Non-Final Act. 2–10.
The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Yamada and Chauvier in view of Yun et al. (US 2007/0189717 A1,
published Aug. 16, 2007) (“Yun”). Id. at 11.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

4
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Issue 1: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Yamada and Chauvier teaches or suggests “generating the second video
player as a thumbnail video player, different from the video player, for
accessing thumbnail video using the thumbnail video variant,” as recited in
independent claim 1?
The Examiner finds the combination of Yamada and Chauvier teaches
the limitation at issue. Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4 (citing Yamada
¶¶ 242–244, 247, 267–270, Fig. 22, and Chauvier ¶¶ 92, 94). Specifically,
the Examiner finds Yamada teaches “a thumbnail video variant of the
variants is accessible by the first video player for a thumbnail video player
feature,” as claimed, and Yamada’s “thumbnail display [is] overlaid on the
display that is used to display the video content.” Ans. 3 (citing Yamada’s
thumbnail display 232 of Fig. 22, ¶¶ 267–269). The Examiner also finds
“Chauvier clearly teaches ‘a trick mode displaying application’ that is used
to display the thumbnails” and “[s]uch a trick mode displaying application
. . . is not used for displaying the video content in the plain playback mode”
and so “[t]his video player is different from a first video player, which is
used to display the video content in normal viewing mode” and therefore
Chauvier teaches a second video player, different from the video player, as
claimed. Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Chauvier ¶¶ 92, 94).
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

5
Appellant argues “Chauvier has a single presentation engine that uses
a single video display for playing the multiplicity of video frames of a
thumbnail source video file or full screen video” and “[a] video display used
to play either thumbnails from the thumbnail video file or the full screen
video, as in Chauvier, is not the same as two operational and independent
video players of the present invention.” Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Chauvier
Fig. 2, 340).
In response, the Examiner finds that, according to Appellant’s
Specification, “the recited second video player is (i) only a thumbnail
display overlaid on the display that is used to display the video content . . .
and (ii) implemented as software component of a video player platform” and
therefore Yamada’s thumbnail 232, displayed in a partial area of screen 231,
teaches “generating a second video player as a thumbnail video player,” as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 34, Fig. 3, Yamada ¶ 267, Fig. 22)
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner additionally finds Chauvier’s “trick
mode displaying application and any part of the presentation engine that is
used for displaying the thumbnails are collectively interpreted as ‘a second
video player.’” Ans. 3–4 (citing Chauvier ¶¶ 92, 94).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings that both Appellant’s Specification and Yamada
disclose a thumbnail display and a full-sized display that are implemented as
software and share the same display hardware. Ans. 3–4. Although
Appellant responds to the Examiner by reasserting that “the thumbnail video
player of the present invention is a secondary and different video player used
for playing thumbnail videos” (Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 14)), Appellant
does not address the Examiner’s findings that Appellant’s Figure 3 and
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

6
corresponding text disclose “only a thumbnail display overlaid on the
display that is used to display the video content” and “implemented as
software” (Ans. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 34 and Fig. 3)). Moreover, Appellant’s
additional argument that “Yamada’s thumbnail that is a partial area of a
moving image is not the same as a second video player for a thumbnail
video” (Reply Br. 2–3) does not persuasively explain why Yamada’s
thumbnail player does not teach or suggest “a thumbnail video player,
different from the video player,” as claimed, in view of Yamada’s similarity
to the disclosed invention, i.e., Yamada’s disclosure of a thumbnail display
and a full-sized display that are implemented as software and share the same
display hardware. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 34).

Issue 2: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Yamada and Chauvier teaches or suggests “a play list having variants,
wherein a video content variant of the variants is accessible by a first video
player for a video player feature, and wherein a thumbnail video variant of
the variants is accessible by a second video player,” as recited in
independent claim 1?
The Examiner finds the combination of Yamada and Chauvier teaches
the limitation at issue. Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–6. Specifically, the
Examiner finds in Yamada’s Playlist File, “the video player package
compris[es] video content variant and a thumbnail video variant” and “both
are accessible by a video player to be displayed on a screen.” Non-Final
Act. 3 (citing Yamada ¶¶ 135–138, 242, 267–270, Figs. 7, 22) (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds Chauvier “teaches a thumbnail video player is
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

7
implemented as a software component of a video playback platform.”
Ans. 3 (citing Chauvier ¶¶ 92, 94); Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues
Although Yamada discusses a Play list File that includes
thumbnail data, the thumbnail data is not a thumbnail video
variant, as in the present invention. Instead, the thumbnail data
in Yamada is a representative frame from a Group of Pictures of
the MPEG2 system stream. In contrast, as described in the
Specification, variants are “alternate streams containing the same
material encoded at a variety of data rates (e.g., bitrates) and
sizes (e.g., width and height), and/or served from different server
locations.”
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶ 18) (emphases added).
In response, the Examiner finds “the thumbnail data in Yamada are
extracted from the video content frames at GOP [(Group of Pictures)]
positions, which are then reduced with number of pixels . . . . As such, the
thumbnail data are the same content that are encoded into [(1)] reduced sizes
and [(2)] at lower temporal resolution.” Ans. 5–6 (citing Yamada ¶¶ 135–
138).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. Yamada teaches
generating thumbnail data by extracting a succession of video content
frames (a stream) with each frame representing a GOP. Yamada ¶¶ 135–
138. Yamada’s thumbnail images are encoded at a lesser data rate and
because the images are thumbnails they are a different size than Yamada’s
full screen images. Id. ¶ 218. As such, even assuming Appellant’s narrower
proposed interpretation of “variant,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Yamada teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 6. Appellant’s additional
argument that “nothing in Yamada mentions a first variant of video content
and second type of variant of thumbnail content, accessible by a first and
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

8
second video player respectively, as in the present invention,” is
unpersuasive because Appellant fails to establish that the cited combination
does not teach first and second video players, as discussed above in Issue 1.
Reply Br. 5.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and of independent claims 8 and 17, which are argued
with claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–25
are not argued separately and so we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of these claims. Appeal Br. 12–16.

Claim 4
Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding Yamada teaches or suggests
“wherein the thumbnail video player is implemented with an adaptive bit
rate (ABR) policy that instructs the thumbnail video player to exclusively
access thumbnail video variants in the playlist,” as recited in dependent
claim 4?
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is in error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Yamada teaches or suggests the limitation at issue
in claim 4. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Yamada ¶¶ 389, 390). Specifically, the
Examiner finds Yamada “teaches the playback of thumbnail data, which is
performed by the thumbnail video player, [and] is implemented to adapt the
variable rate playback of the thumbnail data by limiting the thumbnail video
player to access only thumbnail data, which are encoded to a limited amount
of data.” Ans. 8.
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

9
Appellant argues “data amount restrictions on a bit stream, as in
Yamada, are not the same as a policy-based access restriction on a thumbnail
video player” because claim 1’s “video player restricts the thumbnail video
player’s access only to designated thumbnail video variants in a playlist of
variants” and so “[t]he restriction policy on the [claimed] thumbnail video
player is an access restriction and not a data amount restriction,” as in
Yamada. Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Appellant fails
to specifically address the Examiner’s finding that Yamada’s thumbnail
player 232 is constrained to play only thumbnails. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing
Yamada ¶ 389) (“A VBV [(Video Buffering Verifier)] for performing
variable-rate playback of thumbnails”). For example, Appellant does not
provide evidence from Yamada indicating thumbnail player 232 plays any
content other than thumbnails. Moreover, although Appellant argues claim
1’s “restriction policy . . . is an access restriction and not a data amount
restriction,” (Appeal Br. 6) as in Yamada, this argument fails to address the
substance of the Examiner’s finding that “[b]y limiting the data amount of
all thumbnails equal to or below the maximum permissible amount of code
fb,” where fb “is the amount of data allowed for a thumbnail per frame”
Yamada’s thumbnail player is effectively restricting access to playing only
thumbnail video variants. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Yamada ¶¶ 389, 390);
see also Yamada ¶ 381 (defining “fb”).
Appellant, therefore, fails to persuasively explain why Yamada’s
disclosure of playing only thumbnail video variants on the thumbnail video
player, by way of restricting thumbnail data to a threshold, fails to teach the
Appeal 2019-000977
Application 14/726,110

10
limitation at issue. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22, 24, 25 103 Yamada, Chauvier 1–22, 24,
25

23 103 Yamada, Chauvier,
Yun
23
Overall
Outcome
1–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED