PTAB

IPR2018-01498

Amazon.com Inc v. CustomPlay LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Method for Presenting Information Associated with a Video
  • Brief Description: The ’282 patent describes a system for providing supplemental information related to a video. To solve the problem of user delay (a user requesting information about an item after it has left the screen), the system contemporaneously retrieves and displays information associated with both the current play location and a prior play location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are obvious over McIntire and Dey.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McIntire (Application # 2007/0250901) and Dey (Patent 6,965,890).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McIntire discloses a system for providing supplemental content that addresses user reaction delay. McIntire taught identifying and displaying information for articles appearing "at or around the point in time" a request is received, which inherently includes a time period prior to the request. This, Petitioner asserted, discloses retrieving a first frame identifier (at the request time) and a second, prior frame identifier. Dey was argued to explicitly disclose solving the user-delay problem by retrieving supplemental information associated with a preceding portion of video (e.g., 30 seconds prior to a request). Combining these references rendered the key limitations of claim 4 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine McIntire and Dey because both address the same widely-known problem of user-delay in interactive video systems. Dey’s explicit teaching of retrieving information from a preceding time window was argued to be a known, predictable solution to implement in McIntire’s system. The combination would yield a more efficient and flexible system, which were predictable results. Petitioner contended this was a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because McIntire and Dey are directed to similar interactive video systems, and the combination involved applying a known technique from Dey to improve McIntire’s similar system in a predictable way.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are obvious over Bergen and Reimer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bergen (Patent 6,956,573) and Reimer (Patent 5,696,905).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bergen discloses a video indexing system that retrieves and displays multiple scenes in a "storyboard form" in response to a query. When a user queries an object, the storyboard displays frames for all of its appearances, necessarily including the current appearance (the first video frame) and any prior appearances (the second video frame). Petitioner asserted these frames are retrieved and displayed contemporaneously on the storyboard. Reimer was cited for its explicit disclosure of initiating a query during video playback, for instance, by pressing a "Pause" button, a feature Petitioner argued would be an obvious addition to Bergen.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Bergen and Reimer to improve the user interface of Bergen's system. Because Bergen did not specify how a query is initiated, a POSITA would look to analogous art like Reimer, which taught the user-friendly and ubiquitous method of pausing a video to initiate a request for information. This combination would use a known technique (pausing to query) to improve a similar device (Bergen’s video search system).
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining the references. Both Bergen and Reimer describe interactive video systems, and adding a common pausing function from Reimer to initiate a query in Bergen’s system would have been a straightforward and predictable integration.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are obvious over Armstrong.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Armstrong (Application # 2007/0003223).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Armstrong alone teaches all the limitations. Armstrong describes a system where, upon a user pausing a video, two different frame identifiers are retrieved contemporaneously. The first identifier corresponds to the paused frame (the "request location") and is used to display a relevant, context-specific menu. The second identifier corresponds to a pre-selected "background frame" from a location prior in time, which is used because the paused frame may be blurry or otherwise unsuitable for display. Thus, Armstrong was argued to retrieve a first identifier for the request location and a second, different identifier for a prior location.
    • Motivation to Combine (within the reference): A POSITA would be motivated to implement this system for the exact reasons disclosed in Armstrong: to provide a stable, clear background image for a menu that is specific to the content of the currently paused frame. This solved the known problem of a paused frame being visually inadequate for an overlay menu. Petitioner asserted that performing the two retrievals contemporaneously was well within the skill of a POSITA using a standard computing device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as all the claimed functionality was described within a single, coherent system in Armstrong, designed to solve a recognized problem in the art.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, primarily adding Abecassis (Patent 6,038,367) to the primary combinations (e.g., McIntire/Dey/Abecassis and Bergen/Reimer/Abecassis). Abecassis was primarily relied upon for its teachings of pausing a video in response to a request and resuming play at the beginning of the clip where the pause occurred, addressing limitations in dependent claims 7, 8, and 18.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’282 patent as unpatentable.