Prior Art for a URL to a point in time of video

Question

US Patent No. 2010/0251120 (filed 2009-03-26, USPTO link) seems basically to be "using a URL to link to a given part of a video". The key claim is:

A method comprising:

• receiving from a first user interface a first input from a first user specifying a first particular instant in a video other than a beginning of the video;
• in response to the first input, generating by one or more computer systems first data for inclusion in a link to the video, the first data representing the first particular instant in the video and being operable automatically to direct playback of the video at a second user interface to start at the first particular instant in the video in response to a second user selecting the link at the second user interface;
• and communicating the first data to a link generator for inclusion in the link to the video

or in human speak, something to generate links like blah#t=43s

(plus later, claim 12, that must then be processed by the system, and a lot of minor dependent claims about all of the above, etc)

However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-obvious about this, given that URLs are designed to convey context about a resource. Conveying time as part of a URL does not seem any kind of invention. Can anyone think of prior art for this? Perhaps for audio, if video is elusive?

Answer 1

I'm no expert, and I'm not sure if this qualifies, but the following draft specification appears to define "temporal URI fragments" in a generic way that covers the above clauses. It was published in 2005, there are probably older variants.

Extract from the abstract:

Temporal addressing enables, e.g., direct access to a clip inside a video stored on a Web Server, or direct jumps to a specific event within a piece of music. The syntax is not restricted to audio or video Web resources though, but covers all kinds of Web resources that contain time-continuous information.

http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.html

Answer 2

Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010. But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008 — Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos.

Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?

Reference: USPTO.GOV: 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability …

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.

Answer 3

I thought that the html spec dealt with these as 'fragments' and has been in there for a while:

• Fragment Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture Date: April, 1997. although it deals with music and video is not mentioned.
• Introduction to HTML 4 HTML 4.01 Specification, W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999.

From the 1st link:

For a music object, the Fragment ID could give a section in time

The second link reads (2.1.1 Introduction to URIs):

Every resource available on the Web -- HTML document, image, video clip, program, etc. -- has an address that may be encoded by a Universal Resource Identifier, or "URI".

and a bit further below (2.1.2 Fragment identifiers):

Some URIs refer to a location within a resource

I would think a temporal location is within that scope.

Answer 4

Google published this patent application on on September 30th, 2010. But YouTube (owned by Google) announced the ability to link to timestamps in videos in October, 2008 — Link To The Best Parts In Your Videos.

Wouldn't that invalidate their patent on that basis?

No - the application was filed on March 26, 2009. So a "public use" in October, 2008 would not be "more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent."

Also, keep in mind that this is a just a published application and this is the broadest claim the applicant originally submitted (standard practice - cast a wide net and let the examiner tell you where you have to trim). The fact that it was published has no bearing on its patentability. In fact, I took a quick look on PAIR, just out of curiosity, and this application was published before the examiner had even begun the examination process.

The claims have gone through the typical process of rejection, amendment, final rejection, amendment after final/request for continued examination. Currently, all claims of the application have been "finally" rejected and the current version of the broadest independent claim, as amended after the final rejection, is considerably more limited than the version in the application.