The Nielsen Company (US), LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021001530 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 16/010,078 06/15/2018 Kevin K. Deng 101US04 9843 81905 7590 03/22/2022 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) 150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): docketing@hfzlaw.com jflight@hfzlaw.com mhanley@hfzlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEVIN K. DENG ____________ Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,0781 Technology Center 2400 _____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2-21, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 30-36 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.2 1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Nielsen Company (US), LLC is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 5, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed December 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed October 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed March 5, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and Specification filed June 15, 2018 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The instant application relates to “methods and apparatus to detect a blank frame in a digital video broadcast signal.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to Appellant, the term “blank image” refers to any image or frame that has a substantially constant brightness. A blank image may be a solid image, an image including one or more than one color, or any other image that has a substantially constant brightness. Spec. ¶ 35. Blank image detector 300, shown in Figures 5 and 13, is equipped with (1) blank frame candidate identifier 301 to identify a blank frame candidate from the digital broadcast signal and (2) blank frame tester 302 to determine if the blank frame candidate identified is in fact a blank frame by way of DC (direct current) values of the luminance blocks in each area of the frame. Spec. ¶¶ 73, 75, 86. Figures 8 and 8A shows different embodiments of blank image tester 302 shown in Figures 5 and 13, as reproduced below: Figure 8 depicts an example embodiment of frame image tester 302 including block parser 303, buffer 304, DC value comparator 306, DC value counter 308, and comparator 310 to analyze if the blank frame candidate is in fact a blank frame. Spec. ¶¶ 88-94. Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 3 Figure 8A depicts an alternative embodiment of frame image tester 302 including block parser 303, histogram generator 318, and comparator 310 to analyze if the blank frame candidate is in fact a blank frame. Spec. ¶¶ 95-97. Representative Claim Claims 2, 9, and 16 are independent. Representative claim 2 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized for clarity: 2. A computer readable storage disk or storage device comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to at least: store a compressed digital image in a memory device, the compressed digital image being a frame of a compressed media signal; analyze a total number of bits in the compressed digital image stored in the memory device to determine if the compressed digital image has a data size less than a first threshold; when the data size is less than the first threshold, determine a number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image and store the number of bits associated with each of the multiple areas in the memory device; analyze the number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image stored in the memory device to determine if a deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas is less than a second threshold; in response to the deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas being less than the second threshold, Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 4 identify, via a logic circuit, the compressed digital image as a blank image candidate; when the compressed digital image is not identified as a blank image candidate, discard the compressed digital image from the memory device; when the compressed digital image is identified as a blank image candidate, determine a number of DC values of the blank image candidate that meet a criterion and store the DC values in the memory device; compare the determined number of DC values stored in the memory device meeting the criterion to a third threshold; identify the compressed digital image as a blank image if the determined number of DC values exceeds the third threshold; in response to identifying the blank image, identify an advertisement of a media stream associated with the compressed digital image; and transmit the advertisement to a data processing center. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS3 AND REFERENCES (1) Claims 2-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 12-19. (2) Claims 2-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Suh (US 2003/0137546 A1; published July 24, 2003), Rijavec (US 2003/0090706 A1; published May 15, 2003), and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 21-28. 3 The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 19 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10, 15, and 16 of US Patent No. 7,984,462 (Final Act. 5-11) but has withdrawn the rejection in the Answer (Ans. 3). As such, this rejection is no longer pending on appeal. Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 5 ANALYSIS § 101 Rejection of Claims 2-21 In support of the § 101 rejection, the Examiner finds “the claims appear to recite a judicial exception,” i.e., an abstract idea involving mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment) and alluding to mathematical relationships. Final Act. 14. In particular, the Examiner finds: The claims are directed to separable categories of this abstract idea: information (compressed digital image, number of bits), collecting information (store a compressed digital image, discard the compressed digital image); outputting information (output a signal indicating . . . transmit the advertisement), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (analyze a total number of bits, analyze the number of bits, determine if a deviation is less than a second threshold, identify the compressed digital image as a blank image candidate, identify the compressed digital image as the blank image). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner then finds that “the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception” because these additional elements do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (processor, memory, logic circuit broadly embody use of general purpose computing; storing, evaluating storage size, and discarding data are conventional functions of a general purpose computer); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (applies to any general purpose computer); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 6 article to a different state or thing (producing data properties is not a transformation of an article). Id. at 16-17. Appellant contends that “claim 2 is not directed to an abstract idea such as a mental process” because “claim 2 cannot be practically performed in the human mind and does not merely analyze information at a high degree of algorithmic generality” but instead, “is directed to analyzing compressed digital images to more accurately identify and allocate credit among advertisements.” Appeal Br. 16-17. According to Appellant, the human mind cannot store a compressed digital image, analyze a total number of bits in the stored compressed digital image, determine a number of bits in multiple areas, analyze the number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed image, determine a number of DC values of the blank image candidate, and store the DC values in the memory device. Id. at 17. Appellant also contends that “claim 2 provides a practical application of any judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on any such judicial exception” because claim 2, when evaluated as a whole, is an important improvement in the technical field of compressed digital media distributions (e.g., television and internet broadcast media) and implement[s] a practical and technical solution to the problem of distinguishing portions of a broadcast signal that correspond to advertisements from portions of the broadcast signal that correspond to content to reduce human review of broadcast segments. Id. at 18 (citing Spec. ¶ 38). In response, the Examiner acknowledges the claims “are not mental process” and “do[] not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 7 calculations.” Ans. 7. Nevertheless, the Examiner takes the position that (1) “‘storing and analyzing data’ are conventional functions of a general purpose computer,” (2) the claims are “based on mathematical concepts” and (3) the claims “do not address ‘time segments’” sufficiently to provide “a practical and technical solution to the problem of distinguishing portions of a broadcast signal that correspond to advertisements from portions of the broadcast signal that correspond to content to reduce human review of broadcast segments.” Ans. 4-8 (emphasis in original). We do not agree with the Examiner’s position. Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The threshold inquiry under § 101 is whether the claims are patent eligible under the Supreme Court’s two-part Alice/Mayo framework. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). First, we determine whether a patent claim is directed to a patent- ineligible concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then determine whether the claim nonetheless includes an “inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 78). There is no need to proceed to the second step, however, if the first step of the Alice/Mayo test yields a determination that the claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-one inquiry as looking at the “focus” of the claims, their “character as a whole,” and the Alice step-two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim elements Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 8 add-whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In an effort to achieve clarity and consistency in how the Office applies the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, the Office published revised guidance interpreting governing case law and establishing a framework to govern all patent-eligibility analysis under Alice and § 101 effective as of January 7, 2019. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). 2019 Revised Guidance Under the Revised Guidance, we first look under Alice step 1 or “Step 2A” to whether the claim recites: (1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., [i] mathematical concepts, [ii] mental processes, or [iii] certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and (2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)).4 4 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017 (rev. Jan. 2018). Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 9 See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55, Revised Step 2A, Prong One (Abstract Idea) and Prong Two (Integration into A Practical Application). Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an “inventive concept” under Alice step 2 or “Step 2B.” See 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. For example, we look to whether the claim: 1) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Alice/Mayo-Step 1 (Abstract Idea) Step 2A-Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, the Examiner has already acknowledged the claims “are not mental process” and “do[] not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations.” Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner’s characterization that claims simply recite “‘storing and analyzing data’ are conventional functions of a general purpose computer” is unfounded and unsupported by evidence. (emphasis omitted). According to the Federal Circuit, the Alice step-one inquiry requires that we “focus” on the claimed advance over the prior art and its “character as a whole.” “In conducting that inquiry, we must focus on the language of the [a]sserted [c]laims themselves, considered in light of the specification.” Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 10 TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal quotations and recitation omitted). Appellant’s claim 2 recites a “computer readable storage disk or storage device comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to at least,” among others: (1) store a compressed digital image in a memory device, the compressed digital image being a frame of a compressed media signal; (2) analyze a total number of bits in the compressed digital image stored in the memory device to determine if the compressed digital image has a data size less than a first threshold; (3) when the data size is less than the first threshold, determine a number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image and store the number of bits associated with each of the multiple areas in the memory device; (4) analyze the number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image stored in the memory device to determine if a deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas is less than a second threshold; (5) in response to the deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas being less than the second threshold, identify, via a logic circuit, the compressed digital image as a blank image candidate; (6) when the compressed digital image is not identified as a blank image candidate, discard the compressed digital image from the memory device; (7) when the compressed digital image is identified as a blank image candidate, determine a number of DC values of the blank image candidate that meet a criterion and store the DC values in the memory device; (8) compare the determined number of DC values stored in the memory device meeting the criterion to a third threshold; (9) identify the compressed digital image as a blank image if the determined number of DC values exceeds the third threshold; Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 11 (10) in response to identifying the blank image, identify an advertisement of a media stream associated with the compressed digital image; and (11) transmit the advertisement to a data processing center. Appeal Br. 30-31 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). These specific steps are performed by the blank image detector 300, shown in Figures 5 and 13, and, more specifically, blank frame tester 302, shown in Figures 8 and 8A, to determine if the blank frame candidate identified is in fact a blank frame by way of DC values of the luminance blocks in the frame of the compressed digital image for the purpose of “achieving blank frame detection more quickly and with less decoding overhead than is required by [the] prior art system.” Spec. ¶¶ 53, 73, 75, 86. For example, Figure 8 depicts an example embodiment of frame image tester 302, including block parser 303, buffer 304, DC value comparator 306, DC value counter 308, and comparator 310 to analyze if the blank frame candidate is in fact a blank frame. Spec. ¶¶ 88-94. Alternatively, Figure 8A depicts another embodiment of frame image tester 302, including block parser 303, histogram generator 318, and comparator 310 to analyze if the blank frame candidate is in fact a blank frame. Spec. ¶¶95-97. Only after the blank frame of the digital broadcast signal is analyzed and identified, is “an advertisement of a media stream associated with the compressed digital image” identified. Spec. ¶¶ 44, 46, 49, 58. The “focus” of Appellant’s claim 2 is not to identify “an advertisement of a media stream associated with the compressed digital image” but to employ specific improvements of blank frame tester 302, shown in Figures 8 and 8A, to determine if the blank frame candidate Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 12 identified is in fact a blank frame in order to “achieving blank frame detection more quickly and with less decoding overhead than is required by [the] prior art system.” Spec. ¶¶ 53, 73, 75, 86. Based on the claim language and the Specification, we conclude that claim 2 is not directed to an abstract idea. Because Appellant’s claim 2 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, we need not proceed to the second step of Alice. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 2 and its corresponding apparatus claim 9 and method claim 16 and of their dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21. § 103 Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2-21 Claims 2 and 16 In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Suh, Rijavec, and AAPA teaches all the limitations of Appellant’s claims 2-21. Final Act. 21-28. In particular, the Examiner finds Suh teaches most of the limitations of Appellant’s base claim 2, except for the following: 1. “when the data size is less than the first threshold, determine a number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image and store the number of bits associated with each of the multiple areas in the memory device” and “analyze the number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image . . . to determine if a deviation between the number of bits” and 2. “when the compressed digital image is not identified as a blank image candidate, discard[ing] the compressed digital from the memory device.” Id. at 21-26 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 13 The Examiner then relies upon Rijavec and AAPA for teaching the missing limitations one and two above of Appellant’s claim 2 to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 25-26 (citing Rijavec ¶¶ 54-56; AAPA acknowledged in Spec. ¶ 11). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Suh and Rijavec but not the Examiner’s reason to combine. In particular, Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Suh, Rijavec, and APPA fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation: “in response to the deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas being less than the second threshold, identify, via a logic circuit, the compressed digital image as a blank image candidate.” Appeal Br. 20-25. For example, Appellant acknowledges Suh’s blank tester 7 is constructed to determine a blank frame in an MPEG encoded video stream, via two embodiments: (1) a first embodiment, shown in Figure 3, where a brightness average of the whole pixels of an input DC image is calculated and measured against a threshold (Th1), and (2) a second embodiment, shown in Figure 4, where a number of white pixels of the input DC image is counted and measured against a threshold (Th2). Id. at 21 (citing Suh ¶¶ 36, 73, 83, 87, 88). Appellant argues, however, that Suh does not teach or suggest “in response to the deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas being less than the second threshold, identify, via a logic circuit, a compressed digital image as a blank image candidate.” Id. at 21- 22 (emphasis in original). Nor does Suh teach or suggest “identifying a compressed digital image as a blank image candidate.” Id. at 22. Appellant also argues that, as a secondary reference, “Rijavec does not cure the deficiencies of Suh” because Rijavec only describes Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 14 “identifying a blank frame if the image data contains all zero values.” Id. at 23-24. According to Appellant, Rijavec does not teach or suggest “identifying a blank frame candidate or identifying the blank frame based on the blank frame candidate” and, more importantly, does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation: “in response to a deviation between the number of bits within multiple areas being less than a second threshold, identify, via a logic circuit, a compressed digital image as a blank image candidate,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 2. Id. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings, including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 6. At the outset, we note that arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). For additional emphasis, we note that the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 15 according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Suh and Rijavec, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As correctly recognized by the Examiner, “[a] blank image has several characteristics, which may be exploited for improvement in processing efficiency.” Ans. 6 (citing Rijavec ¶¶ 54-56). For example, there are several well-known prior art techniques for detecting a blank image from an encoded video stream based on the characteristics of the blank image. One common technique to determine a blank frame in an encoded video stream (e.g., conventional MPEG standards for compression of digital movies) is disclosed by Suh’s blank tester 7, shown in Figure 1, based on (1) an average pixel of an input DC image relative to a threshold (Th1), shown in Figure 3; or alternatively, (2) a count value of white pixels of the input DC image relative to a threshold (Th2), shown in Figure 4. Id. (citing Suh ¶¶ 72-85). According to Suh, these alternative embodiments of blank tester 7, shown in Figures 3-4, can also be incorporated into a single type blank tester to determine a blank image. Suh ¶¶ 86-89. Another common technique to determine a blank frame in an encoded video stream is disclosed by Rijavec based on the differences between zero frequency coefficient values of each block of pixels, which are all equal to zero, since the image has no intensity changes from pixel to pixel. Ans. 6 (citing Rijavec ¶¶ 54-56; see also ¶¶ 52-53). According to Rijavec, an image is comprised of 8x8 blocks of pixels (i.e., the claimed “multiple areas Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 16 of the compressed digital image” as disclosed in Appellant’s Spec. ¶¶ 67- 70) where the zero frequency coefficient of a first block is coded and the difference (i.e., deviation) between the zero frequency coefficient in the preceding data block and the zero frequency coefficient value in the current data block is identified. Rijavec ¶ 54. Based on (1) several well-known prior art techniques established by Suh and Rijavec to detect a blank image from an encoded video stream and (2) the known characteristics of a blank image, which may be exploited for improvement in processing efficiency, the Examiner had a factual basis to find that Rijavec, either alone, or in combination with Suh, teaches or suggests analyzing the number of bits (pixels) in multiple areas to determine if there is a deviation and then “in response to a deviation between the number of bits within multiple areas being less than a second threshold, identify, via a logic circuit, a compressed digital image as a blank image candidate,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 2. Ans. 6. As further suggested by the Examiner, a person skilled in the art would have had the knowledge, creativity, and common sense to utilize various well-known prior art techniques and associated variations and adaptations to accommodate different types of data streams in order to detect a blank image, such as Appellant’s claim 2. Moreover, Appellant has not explained to us why combining the teachings of Suh and Rijavec to arrive at Appellant’s claimed invention or why Appellant’s claimed invention would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 17 Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007); cf. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60 (1969). Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding (1) “not all blank frame candidates are blank frames” and (2) “identifying blank frames as described by Suh and Rijavec does not teach or suggest identifying blank frame candidates.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis in original). We agree with Appellant that “not all blank frame candidates are blank frames.” However, we find that every image frame that is analyzed by either Suh’s blank tester or by Rijavec’s blank image detector is considered as a blank frame candidate as recited in Appellant’s claim 2. For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of reversiable Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of base claim 2 and its corresponding method claim 16 and of their dependent claims 3-8 and 17-21, which are not argued separately. Claims 9-15 Appellant’s apparatus claim 9 differs from claims 2 and 16 in its scope of coverage. In particular, claim 9 defines a broader apparatus to detect a blank image within a compressed media signal comprising two essential, distinct components: (1) a blank frame candidate identifier configured to perform several specific, detailed functions to identify a blank image candidate; and (2) a blank frame tester configured to perform similar functions recited in Appellant’s claims 2 and 16. For example, the blank frame candidate identifier is configured to: analyze a total number of bits in the compressed digital image stored in the buffer to determine if the compressed digital image has a data size less than a first threshold; Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 18 when the data size is less than the first threshold, determine a number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image and store the number of bits associated with each of the multiple areas in the buffer; analyze the number of bits in multiple areas of the compressed digital image stored in the buffer to determine if a deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas is less than a second threshold; in response to the deviation between the number of bits within the multiple areas being less than the second threshold, identify the compressed digital image as a blank image candidate; and when the compressed digital image is not identified as a blank image candidate, discard the compressed digital image from the buffer. Likewise, the blank frame tester is configured to when the compressed digital image is identified as a blank image candidate, determine a number of DC values of the blank image candidate that meet a criterion and store the DC values in the buffer; compare the determined number of DC values stored in the buffer meeting the criterion to a third threshold; and identify the compressed digital image as a blank image if the determined number of DC values exceeds the third threshold. Appeal Br. 32-33. Appellant contends (1) the Examiner fails to acknowledge the distinction between the claimed “blank frame candidate identifier” and the claimed “blank frame tester” and (2) the Examiner’s combination of Suh, Rijavec, and APPA fails to teach or suggest Appellant’s claimed “frame candidate identifier” and its functions in a manner recited in Appellant’s claim 9. Appeal Br. 25. Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 19 The Examiner does not address the distinction between the claimed “blank frame candidate identifier” and the claimed “blank frame tester” in either the Final Office Action or the Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (1992). Because the Examiner fails to account for Appellant’s claimed “frame candidate identifier” and its functions in a manner recited in Appellant’s claim 9 and, therefore, fails to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability in the first instance, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 9-15. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 2-21 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and (2) claims 9-15 as obvious over the combined teachings of Suh, Rijavec, and AAPA. However, Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-8 and 16-21 as obvious over the combined teachings of Suh, Rijavec, and AAPA. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2-21 101 Eligibility 2-21 2-8, 16-21 103 Suh, Rijavec, AAPA 2-8, 16-21 Appeal 2021-001530 Application 16/010,078 20 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9-15 103 Suh, Rijavec, AAPA 9-15 Overall Outcome 2-8, 16-21 9-15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART