LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2021

2021004589 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 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.
15/706,656 09/15/2017 William Crowder 0234-US-U2-C1 4569
83579 7590 11/18/2021
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
YANG, NIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2021 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):
patent.docketing@lumen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM CROWDER, JEFFREY G. KOLLER, and
DAVID FULLAGAR
____________________
Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,6561
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 19, and 26–32. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held November 1, 2021. A transcript will be made of
Record in due course.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Century Link Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,656

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to obtaining a plurality of image
files, each corresponding to an image in a video stream and building a
common file from a contiguous grouping of the plurality of image files.
Abstract. The video stream has a plurality of contiguous video segments,
each having a first video frame, and the plurality of image files correspond
to the plurality of first video frames of the plurality of video segments. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for a video stream;
determining whether a frequency of requests for the video stream exceeds
a threshold;
in response to the frequency exceeding the threshold, obtaining a
plurality of images in a video stream, wherein the obtaining the plurality of
images comprises:
dividing the video stream into n logically contiguous segments, each
segment having a corresponding start point, and each start point having a
corresponding video frame associated therewith; and
for a set of two or more logically contiguous segments of the n logically
contiguous segments:
determining a start video frame corresponding substantially to
the start point of a particular logical segment in the set, and
identifying an image of the plurality of images corresponding to
the start video frame;
forming a common file comprising a contiguous grouping of the
plurality of images; and
providing the common file wherein the common file allows the user to
move to a new location in the video stream to continue viewing the video
stream from the new location.
Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,656

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kuhn US 2002/0157112 Al Oct. 24, 2002
Pai US 2006/0271972 Al Nov. 30, 2006
Bouton US 2007/0002946 Al Jan. 4, 2007
Casagrande US 2009/0307741 Al Dec. 10, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–5, 19, 26–29, 32 103 Bouton, Pai,
Casagrande
6, 7, 30, 31 103 Bouton, Pai, and
Casagrande, Kuhn

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part
determining a start video frame corresponding substantially to
the start point of a particular logical segment in the set, and
identifying an image of the plurality of images corresponding to
the start video frame;
forming a common file comprising a contiguous grouping of the
plurality of images; and
providing the common file wherein the common file allows the user to
move to a new location in the video stream to continue viewing the video
stream from the new location.

See claim 1.
Appellant argues inter alia, that contrary to the Examiner’s finding,
Bouton does not teach or suggest “determining a start video frame
corresponding substantially to the start point of a particular logical segment
in the set, and identifying an image of the plurality of images corresponding
Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,656

4
to the start video frame; forming a common file comprising a contiguous
grouping of the plurality of images.” Appeal Br. 11 and see Final Act. 4–6
(citing Bouton paras. 241, 255).
In particular, Appellant argues that Bouton does not teach or suggest a
common file as claimed comprising a “grouping of the plurality of images”
that comprises, “an image . . . corresponding to the start video frame,”
which corresponds, “substantially to the start point of a particular logical
segment in the set.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bouton teaches each segment
utilizes I-frames as divided segment boundaries, and these divided segments
start with an I-frame. Ans. 18 (citing Bouton, paras. 241, 255).
However, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion Bouton does not teach
“determining a start video frame corresponding substantially to the start
point of a particular logical segment in the set” because Bouton teaches that
“boundaries are typically the last frame of one divided segment and/or the
beginning of a subsequent divided segment.” See Ans. 18 (citing Bouton,
para. 253). Accordingly, even if the I-frame can denote boundaries it cannot
serve as a “start point of a particular logical segment in the set” because
Bouton teaches that this I-frame is the last segment of the divided segment
or the beginning of the subsequent segment. See Bouton, para. 253.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Bouton does not teach or
suggest “an image . . . corresponding to the start video frame,” which
corresponds, “substantially to the start point of a particular logical segment
in the set.” Appeal Br. 13.

Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,656

5
Appellant further argues that Casagrande is devoid of any teaching
where images associated with, “a start video frame corresponding
substantially to the start point of a particular logical segment,” is formed
into, “a common file comprising a contiguous grouping of the plurality of
images.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner finds that Casagrande teaches a common file having
location information 106 to partition the audio/video data 402 into
multiple segments and the location information 106 further includes
information utilized to generate a selection menu including the segments
comprising a contiguous grouping of the plurality of images and a selection
menu 700 allowing a user to select a subset of associated contiguous
segments providing the common file. See Final Act. 6–7 citing Casagrande
paras. 43, 46, 49. The Examiner further finds that the common file allows
the user to move to a new location in the video stream to continue viewing
the video stream from the new location, such as adjusting the presentation
order of the selected segments of the audio/video stream 400 during
presentation. Id.
We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s Specification describes a multifile (i.e.,
common file) as a video split into segments having starting points associated
with the corresponding first video frame allowing the user to move at
different locations of the video. See Abstract and Spec. paras. 125–131. We
agree with the Examiner that Casagrande teaches, consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, segments of a video and allows the user to skip
Appeal 2021-004589
Application 15/706,656

6
over undesignated segments with location information of the boundaries of
segments. Ans. 21 (citing Casagrande paras. 32, 43, 46). However, on the
record before us, the Examiner does not sufficiently identify how,
Casagrande teaches or suggests “a start video frame corresponding to the
start point of a particular logical segment” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are constrained from the record before us to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections
of claims 3–7, 19, and 26–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The additional cited
references of Pai and Kuhn do not cure the above cited deficiencies.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 19,
26–29, 32
103 Bouton, Pai,
Casagrande
1, 3–5, 19,
26–29, 32
6, 7, 30, 31 103 Bouton, Pai,
Casagrande, Kuhn
6, 7, 30,
31
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 19,
26–32

REVERSED