Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2021

2021002377 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 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.
15/804,216 11/06/2017 Christopher Stone 007412.03857 7527
71867 7590 10/07/2021
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
HARRELL, ROBERT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2021 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):
PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER STONE
____________________

Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 22 through 41. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is
the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to using a method for previously-identified
location within content, such as a splash screen indicating a transition
between main program content and a commercial segment, to skip to a
subsequent location in the content, such as a location at which a subsequent
appearance of the splash screen is presented. Abstract. Claim 32 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
32. A method comprising:
determining a first location, within video content, of a
first image selected in accordance with first user input;
determining a second location, within the video content,
of a second image selected in accordance with second user
input;
determining, based on the first location and the second
location, a third location within the video content;
determining a reference image that is at the third location
within the video content;
determining, based on the reference image, a third image
that is within the video content; and
causing a device to output the video content beginning at a
location associated with the third image.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 22 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Mostafa (US 9,225,795 B2; issued Dec. 29, 2015).
Ans. 3–10.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 17,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed February 17, 2021 (“Reply Br.”);
Final Office Action mailed April 29, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 17, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 through 41.

Independent claim 32
With respect to independent claim 32, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection based upon Mostafa is in error as Mostafa
does not disclose “determining, based on the reference image, a third image
that is within the video content,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–4.
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner’s finding that advertisements
that repeat (which the Examiner equated to the claimed third image) does
not demonstrate that subsequent advertisements are based upon the earlier
images and is based upon hypothesizing. Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing Final Act. 4,
and Mostafa, col. 6, l. 51–col. 7, l. 26). Further, Appellant argues:
Even if, for the sake of argument, the specific conjured
advertisement were shown during a later commercial break
(which again, is not disclosed), Mostafa fails to disclose that
such a later advertisement (the alleged “third image”) would be
determined based on the shirt in earlier advertisement 114d (the
alleged “reference image”). If anything, the advertisement 114d
( containing the alleged “reference image”) is itself based on
user-selected image 120c in content 112b. Mostafa at 6:64-7:6.
But no image is ever determined based on the alleged
“reference image” in 114d. Indeed, Mostafa does not disclose
determining one advertising image (the alleged “third image”)
based on another advertising image (the alleged “reference
image”). Nor does the Office Action provide evidence
supporting its position.

Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

4
Appeal Br. 6.

The Examiner has equated the claimed first image, and second image
with items 120c and 120a in Mostafa’s Figure 1. Final Act. 4, and Ans. 5
(citing figure 1A and col. 4 l. 23 – col. 8, l. 36). The Examiner equates the
reference image with item 114d (shirt) in Figure 1A. Final Act. 4, and Ans. 5
(citing figure 1A and col. 4, l. 23 – col. 8, l. 36). Further, the Examiner
equates the claimed determined third image with an image of the shirt in an
advertisement in a repeat advertisement temporarily located to the right of
the sequence of images shown in Figure 1A. Final Act. 4 (citing col. 5, l.
51– col. 7, l. 26), Ans. 4. The Examiner summarizes:
Hence, Mostafa taught, and/or anticipated, the claimed
third image which would be an image “such as a shirt, car, or
clubs, being temporally located in time after [to the right of]
112a of figure 1A during a repeat of the advertisement(s) from
114d to 114a, since advertisement repeat multiple times, thus,
Mostafa does teach repeating advertisements multiple times
(e.g., see col. 19 (lines 62-63 “commercial multiple times”)).
Also, since the far left of 108’ indicates the content 108’
continuing, subsequent repeats of previous advertisement 110
would be based on that same advertisement and thus the shirt in
114d. There are no reselections of products from the users for
112b and 112a; hence, subsequent advertisement 110 are based
on what previous advertisement was provided to the viewers.
Examiner notes, as clearly shown previously in Mostafa, that
the center user 102b had selected 136 (golf club bag), which is
the reference image for the selection of 120b; hence, that
reference image would also be used in a subsequent repeat of
the advertisement. Determining what to show is based on what
is selected (i.e., the shirt was selected and thus shown, not the
roofer).

Ans. 5.
Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

5
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Claim 32 recites determining a reference image and then using the
determined reference image (that is determined based upon location of user
inputs) to determine a third image in the video content. We concur with the
Examiner that Mostafa teaches that there are advertisements temporally after
the last image depicted in Figure 1A and that commercials may be repeated.
(See e.g. discussion of commercials in upcoming commercial breaks in col.
6, l. 55– col. 7, l. 67 and discussion of multiple viewings of commercials in
col. 19, ll. 62–63). However, we disagree with the Examiner that Mostafa
teaches the repeat advertisements, equated to the claimed third image, are
determined based upon a reference image (which is based upon location of
user selected images). The discussion in col. 5, l. 51 – col. 7, l. 26, cited by
the Examiner as determining the third image, does teach determining an
advertisement/commercial, selected based upon user input. This teaching is
of inserting a commercial with detailed information about the user selection
in place of the scheduled commercial; and does not include a teaching to
repeat an already shown commercial (equated to the claimed third image) as
asserted by the Examiner. Further, in as much as the Examiner may have
intended to equate the claimed third image with the substitute
advertisement/commercial, we do not consider this to meet the claim as the
Examiner has not shown that the substitute commercial is part of the video
content, rather it appears to be something that is added to the video stream.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 32 and the claims which depend thereupon.

Independent claim 22
Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

6
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim
22 is in error for reasons similar to those discussed with respect to claim 32.
Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 22 recites
“determining, based on the first image, a second image that is within the
video content and that corresponds to the first image” and that the Examiner
relies upon the same rationale as discussed with respect to claim 32. Appeal
Br. 7.
The Examiner states that claim 22 is rejected applying the same
rationale as discussed above with respect to claim 32 stating “claim 22’s first
image would map to claim 32’s reference image, claim 22’s first location
would map to claim 32’s third location, claim 22’s second image would map
to claim 32’s third image, claim 22’s second location would map to claim
32’s (last line) location.” Ans. 7.
Similar to our analysis of claim 32, Appellant’s arguments have
persuaded us of error in claim 22 and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 22 and the claims dependent thereupon.

Independent claim 36
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim
36 is in error for reasons similar to those discussed with respect to claim 32.
Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 36 teaches
“determining, based on the first portion of the video content, a different
second portion of the video content that comprises a second image” and that
the Examiner relies upon the same rationale as discussed with respect to
claim 32. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner states that claim 36 is rejected applying the same
Appeal 2021-002377
Application 15/804,216

7
rationale as discussed above with respect to claims 32 and 22. Ans. 10.
Similar to our analysis of claim 32, Appellant’s arguments have
persuaded us of error in claim 36 and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 36 and the claims dependent thereupon.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22 through 41.
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22–41 102 Mostafa 22–41

REVERSED