Ex Parte Martin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 201613074293 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation