Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020004836 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
15/354,028 11/17/2016 Jeff Moguillansky SYP001882US01 4418
36738 7590 12/02/2021
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF MOGUILLANSKY
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–20. Claim 11 is
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “embedding HTML-5 and Javascript in
user-data field of MPEG or AVC transport stream.” Spec. Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device comprising:
at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal
and that comprises instructions executable by at least one
processor to:
enter into a format_identifier field of a registration
descriptor element of a user-data element a descriptor indicating
that at least one data field of the user-data element contains
information pertaining to at least one of: hypertext markup
language 5 (HTML5), or Javascript content, or HTML5 and
Javascript content;
embed into the user-data element the information
pertaining to the at least one of: HTML5, Javascript content;
associate the user-data element with at least one of: a
Moving Picture Expert Group (MPEG) transport stream (TS), or
an Advanced Video Coding (AVC) transport stream (TS), or
both an MPEG TS and an AVC TS; and
transmit at least one of the TS such that a receiver of the
at least one of the TS responsive to the format_identifier field
invokes a HTML5/Javascript control to read the information in
the at least one data field to render the information.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on these references:
Name Reference Date
Hunt US 2003/0084441 A1 May 1, 2003
Eyer US 2009/0070883 A1 Mar. 12, 2009
Knight US 2012/0014663 A1 Jan. 19, 2012
Choi US 2013/0105567 A1 May 2, 2013
Doan US 2014/0337888 A1 Nov. 13, 2014
Mandyam US 2016/0360288 A1 Dec. 8, 2016
ASTC Digital Television Standard, Part 3-Service Multiplex and
Transport Subsystem Characteristics, Doc. A/53 Part 3:2013, August 7,
2013 (“ATSC”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 8, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hunt, ATSC, and Mandyam. Final Act. 7–12, 17–
18.
Claims 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hunt, ATSC, Mandyam, and Eyer.3 Final Act. 12–17.
Claims 5–7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hunt, ATSC, Mandyam, and Knight. Final Act. 18–19.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hunt, ATSC, Mandyam, and Doan. Final Act. 20.

2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only.
3 The Examiner groups the rejection of claims 13–15 with the rejections of
claims 1–4, 8, 12, and 20. Although a separate statement of rejection is not
provided for claims 13–15, it is clear from the Examiner’s analysis that
claims 13–15 are rejected as being obvious over Hunt, ATSC, Mandyam and
Eyer.
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

4
Claims 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hunt, ATSC, Eyer, Mandyam, and Choi. Final Act. 21–
26.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in determining that modifying the teachings
of Hunt with those of ATSC would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Hunt, ATSC, and Mandyam. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds “Hunt
teaches ITV data is inserted and embedded into an MPEG2 private data field
of a video portion of a video program.” Final Act. 3 (citing Hunt ¶¶ 22, 53).
The Examiner explains “[t]he ITV data/content is interpreted as a descriptor,
the MPEG 2 private data field is the data field and the user-data element is
the video program.” Final Act. 3. Thus, the Examiner explains:
Hunt is cited for teaching the following limitations[:]
enter into a data field of a user-data element a descriptor
indicating that at least one data field of the user-data element
contains information pertaining to at least one of application
types; [and]
embed into the user-data element the information pertaining to
the at least one of: application types.
Final Act. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Examiner
acknowledges that Hunt does not teach that the data field taught by Hunt’s
MPEG 2 private data field is “a format_identifier field of a registration
descriptor element.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner addresses this deficiency,
finding that “it is well known in the art, to define format of a content using a
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

5
format identifier field, as evidenced by ATSC” because “ATSC discloses
wherein a data field is a format identifier_field of a registration descriptor
element.” Final Act. 8 (citing ATSC p. 11, §§ 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.3).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Hunt to use a format_identifier field of a registration descriptor element, as
taught by a TSC because:
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize
the teachings of ATSC for placing a format_identifier field into
a descriptor loop. The teachings of ATSC, when implemented
in the Hunt system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to
specify private data by using private data indicator descriptor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the
teachings of ATSC in the Hunt system in order to have a
mechanism to uniquely identify contents of programs and
program elements of transport streams so that the contents can
be decoded correctly by decoding equipment.
Final Act. 9 (citing ATSC p. 11, § 5.2.1).
Appellant contends the Examiner made two errors with respect to
these findings. First, Appellant argues that the claim requires that two items
of information be provided to a user-data element: (1) entering a descriptor
indicating that at least one data field of the user-data element contains
information, and (2) embedding the indicated information into the user-data
element. Appellant argues Hunt fails to meet this requirement because
“Hunt does not enter two things into any one element that might read on
‘user-data element’.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends that while Hunt
teaches embedding JavaScript into a private data ITV field, “there is no
separate descriptor entered into any field of Hunt’s ‘private data field’
(presumably being relied on as the claimed ‘user-data element’) apart from
the ITV data.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

6
on Hunt’s paragraph 28 is misplaced because although Hunt references the
use of a descriptor, “paragraph 28 neither states that the ‘descriptor’ is in any
field of the relied-upon ‘user-data element’ nor does it state that the
descriptor contains information pertaining to ‘an application type’ as alleged
in the rejection in order to remold Hunt to fit the claim language however
remotely.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues the Examiner’s characterization
of the video program of Hunt as a user-data element impermissibly broadens
the meaning of “user-data element” in a manner “repugnant both to the
instant specification . . . and the Examiner’s own reference.” Appeal Br. 8.
Second, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s reasoning for combining
Hunt and ATSC. Specifically, Appellant argues “there is nothing in Hunt
indicating an inability to ‘specify private data’ that the ITV data could not
do. Further, Hunt already ‘uniquely identifies contents’ in a way (for
instance, using hyperlinks to individual network locations) that permits
correct decoding, or else Hunt would not work at all.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues that “Hunt does not need ATSC to correctly decode
programming” and that “[t]he proffered motivation to use ATSC in Hunt in
a vague, unspecified manner makes no sense in the context of actually
implementing Hunt.” Appeal Br. 9.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
references is insufficient. The Examiner reasons that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have sought to improve Hunt’s ITV embedding
capability by incorporating a format_identifier field as taught by ATSC “in
order to have a mechanism to uniquely identify contents of programs and
program elements of transport streams so that the contents can be decoded
correctly by decoding equipment.” Final Act. 9. However, as Appellant
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

7
correctly points out, nothing in Hunt indicates that the system is unable to
correctly identify and/or correctly decode the ITV content that is delivered
together with the broadcast video signal. In fact, Hunt teaches that “[a]t an
appropriate time, the video program with the embedded ITV data is
broadcast via a data player 16 and a broadcast station 18. An ITV receiver
20 in a viewer’s home receives and decodes the ITV data contained in the
television program.” Hunt ¶ 33. Because Hunt already provides the ability
to identify and decode the embedded content, the Examiner’s reason for why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Hunt with ATSC does not have a rational underpinning sufficient to support
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.4 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, nor of the remaining claims which each rely on similar reasoning
for combining references.

4 Although the Examiner’s proffered rationale for combining ATSC and
Hunt is insufficient, we do not consider whether there are other rationales
sufficient to support their combination. In the event of continued
prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the combination of
ATSC with Hunt amounts only to combining prior art elements according to
known method to yield a predictable result and substituting one known
element for another to obtain a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–18.
While the Board has discretion to enter a new ground of rejection, no
inference should be drawn from a failure to exercise that discretion. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b); MPEP § 1213.02.
Appeal 2020-004836
Application 15/354,028

8
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 12,
20
103 Hunt, ATSC,
Mandyam
1–4, 8, 12,
20
13–15 103 Hunt, ATSC,
Mandyam, Eyer
13–15
5–7, 9 103 Hunt, ATSC,
Mandyam, Knight
5–7, 9
10 103 Hunt, ATSC,
Mandyam, Doan
10
16–19 103 Hunt, ATSC, Eyer,
Mandyam, Choi
16–19
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–20

REVERSED