Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

13074293 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/074,293 03/29/2011
99412 7590 07119/2016
Dingman IP Law, PC/Bose Corporation
114 Turnpike Road , Suite 108
Westborough, MA 01581
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith Dana Martin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
30073-015001 9502
EXAMINER
COONEY, ADAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte KEITH DANA MARTIN and DAVID PAUL DATTA
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Final Action indicates claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
Final Act. 1. Based on the Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief
Review, claims 1---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 are pending and stand rejected.
Notice, l; see also Br. Claims Appendix. Accordingly, we treat claims 7, 9,
and 1 7 as being cancelled.
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellants' claimed invention relates to selecting tracks of music to
be played based on user preferences. Spec. i-fi-12--4.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A computer program product, tangibly embodied on a
non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising
instructions, which when executed by a data processor of a
multimedia player, cause the data processor to:
determine first media content characteristics that
characterize a user-specific collection of media content,
including determining the first media content characteristics
based on first media content attributes associated with the user-
specific collection of media content, the determining including
text matching between the first media content attributes and a
set of possible first media content characteristics;
compare the first media content characteristics with
second media content characteristics that characterize a first set
of external streaming media content channels; and
based on the results of the comparison, present identifiers
of a subset of the first set of external streaming media content
channels on an interface of the multimedia player.
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2004/0225519 Al, Nov. 11,
2004). Ans. 2-8.
Issues
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Martin discloses
"determin[ing] first media content characteristics that characterize a user-
specific collection of media content," such that "the determining includ[ es]
2
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
text matching between the first media content attributes and a set of possible
first media content characteristics," as recited in independent claim 1, and
commensurately recited in independent claim 14?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Martin discloses
"determin[ing] a location of the multimedia player" and "identify[ing], as
the first set of external media content channels, a plurality of broadcast
programming channels based at least in part on the determined location of
the multimedia player," as recited in claim 6?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We agree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-5, 8, 10-16, 18-20 cannot be sustained. We disagree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred with respect to claim 6. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10--16, 18-20
The Examiner finds Martin discloses a metadata maintenance module
that is used to acquire and maintain the metadata. Ans. 3 (citing Martin
i-f 124). Martin, however, describes that the metadata maintenance module
acquires metadata "from sources of metadata 60" and "in some cases may be
provided directly by the user through the input of the user interface or
through a personal computer interface to the storage." Martin i-f 124.
Accordingly, we find that paragraph 124 of Martin is silent as to whether
metadata is determined or acquired by text matching.
3
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
The Examiner also finds Martin discloses using a user created playlist
to match an artist to other tracks to determine additional tracks to be played.
Ans. 2, 9 (citing Martin i-f 167). Appellants argue "[t]he specific paragraphs
of the Martin reference relied upon by the Examiner teach text ( metadata)
searching of words based on the user's preferences, to find works the user
may enjoy," rather than text matching in accordance with the disputed
limitation. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants. Additionally, we find that the
other portions of Martin identified by the Examiner also do not remedy the
deficiency. Ans. 3, 9 (citing Martin i-fi-190, 119, 202, 331, 369, 370, Fig. 9).
We agree with Appellants' contention that Martin does not disclose
determining first media content characteristics such that the determining
includes text matching between the first media content attributes and a set of
possible first media content characteristics (Br. 7-8).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the rejection
of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Martin.
Because each of claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 depend, directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 1 or 14, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claim 6
Appellants contend "Martin simply describes use of the device at
various locations" and does not disclose determining a location of the
multimedia player and identifying, as the first set of external media content
channels, a plurality of broadcast programming channels based at least in
part on the determined location of the multimedia player. Br. 9-10.
4
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
The Examiner finds (Ans. 6 (citing Martin iii! 13, 77, 80, 113, 140,
145) ), and we agree, Martin discloses a system for selecting music tracks
supplied from sources including "broadcast media" and radio, such as "a
standard AM/FM radio" or "a satellite radio" (see, e.g., Martin iii! 113, 145).
We thus agree with the Examiner's findings that Martin discloses
determining a location of the multimedia player and identifying a plurality of
broadcast programming channels based at least in part on that location. We
also note that in its summary of the claimed subject matter, Appellants point
to paragraphs 90 and 94 of the Specification. Br. 6. These paragraphs
describe the disputed limitations in connection with a radio, such as a car
radio. Spec.ifif 90, 94. For example, the Specification describes that the
location module obtains "a list of broadcast radio stations that are available
for the current location." Spec. if 90. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions.
As highlighted above, we have considered Appellants' arguments and
the evidence of record, but Appellants have not persuaded us of error with
respect to claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over
Martin.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Martin.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Martin.
5
Appeal2015-002222
Application 13/074,293
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6