Ex Parte Toms et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 201612234296 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/234,296 09/19/2008 48116 7590 05/23/2016 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yann Toms 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. LUTZ 2 00605 ALU No. 801 EXAMINER WILCOX, JAMES J 3775 Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2494 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2016 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@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YANN TOMS, CHRISTOPHE SENOT, STEPHANE BETGE BREZETZ, and ARMEN AGHASARYAN Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows: Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 1. A device for indexing content made available to users, compnsmg: a processing module configured to associate new metadata with a select piece of content, wherein the new metadata at least partially defines the select piece of content based on contextual information representative of usage of a set of available content by users; on user information representative of profiles of the users that used the set of available content; and on current metadata previously associated with said select piece of content; the processing module comprising: a first aggregation module configured to aggregate contextual information for each piece of content from the set of available content and user information for each user of one or more piece of content from the set of available content to deliver primary aggregated information, wherein the contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage, wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users; and a second aggregation module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information related to the select piece of content to deliver new metadata related to the select piece of content. Examiner's Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro et al. (US 2008/0159715 Al; published July 3, 2008) and Ferman et al. (US 2002/0059584 Al; published May 16, 2002). 1 Final Act. 2-16. 1 We note that although the heading of the Final Rejection states that only claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman (Final Act. 2), the body of the rejection includes claim 21 (Final Act. 16). Therefore, we 2 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 (2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 12 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Johansson et al. (US 2005/0259958 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005). Final Act. 16-19. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, Johansson, and Hoffert et al. (US 6,282,549 B 1; issued Aug. 28, 2001 ). Final Act. 19-20. (4) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, and 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Herz et al. (US 6,029,195; issued Feb. 22, 2000). Final Act. 20-28. (5) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Idehara et al. (US 7,613,730 B2; issued Nov. 3, 2009). Final Act. 28-35. consider claim 21 to also be rejected as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman. 3 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 ISSUES2 Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-17) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6), the following issues are presented on appeal: (I) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination fails to teach or suggest a first aggregation module, wherein the contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage, wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as recited in representative independent claim 1? 2 Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (ii .. pp. Br. 6-17; Reply Br. 2---6). Appellants rely on the arguments presented for: (i) claim 1 as to the patentability of dependent claims 7, 8, and 10, which contain similar features (App. Br. 6-11); (ii) claim 11 as to the patentability of dependent claims 16 and 17 (App. Br. 11-14); and (iii) claim 20 as to the patentability of dependent claim 21 (App. Br. 14--17). Accordingly, we select: (i) claim 1 as representative of the group of claims (claims 1, 7, 8, and 10) rejected for obviousness over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman; (ii) claim 11 as representative of the group of claims (claims 11, 16, and 17); and claim 20 as representative of the group of claims (claims 20 and 21) rejected for obviousness over Fuasaro and Ferman. With regard to the rejection of (i) claims 2 and 12 over the combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, and Johansson; (ii) claim 3 over the combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, Johansson, and Hoffert; (iii) claim 5, 6, 13, and 15 over the combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, and Herz; and (iv) claims 9, 18, and 19 over the combination ofFuasaro, Ferman, and Idehara, Appellants rely on the arguments already presented with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (App. Br. 17). 4 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 (11) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11, 16, and 17 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination fails to teach or suggest aggregating the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the pieces of content; aggregating the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content for which aggregated information was formed to form new metadata for the select piece of content; and determining if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at least in part on the new metadata, as recited in representative independent claim 11? (III) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 20 and 21 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination fails to teach or suggest the first aggregation processing module is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with the used pieces of content and the corresponding users; a second aggregation processing module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new metadata; and a update processing module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to create current metadata, as recited in representative independent claim 20? 5 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-35) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-17) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response (Ans. 2-11) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. With regard to representative claims 1, 11, and 20, we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt as our own (1) the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (see Final Act. 2-35), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2-11). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants' arguments as follows. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 1 (Final Act. 2---6) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests a first aggregation module (218) (i-f 3 5; Fig. 2) and a second aggregation module (308) (i-f 42; Fig. 3). In light of Appellants' Specification which broadly describes various terms including "content," "user information," and "user profile" (see pp. 1, 5), Ferman (i-f 575) teaches or suggests the contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage, wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users with its disclosures of user profiles generated to provide information on a user's interests, personal preferences, content consumption behaviors, and ratings of specific programs. It would have been obvious to a person having 6 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 ordinary skill in the art to combine Fuasaro with Ferman because doing so would have produced the added benefit of allowing a service provider to offer new content to a user based on the user's past consumption and preferences. In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants' contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or suggest a first aggregation module, wherein the contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage, wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as set forth in representative claim 1, are not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 (which also rely on the same base combination of Fuasaro and Ferman). Claims 11-19 We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 11 (Final Act. 8-12) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests aggregating the contextual information (metadata 208) and user information (user profile information 220 (mislabeled 218 in i-f 3 5)) to form primary aggregated information associated with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the pieces of content (i-f 35; Fig. 2); aggregating the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content (bonus content) for which aggregated information was formed to form new metadata (bonus content metadata 322) for the select piece of content (i-fi-f 35, 42; Figs. 2 & 3); and 7 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 determining if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at least in part on the new metadata (i-fi-f 42, 46; Figs. 2 and 3). In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants' contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or suggest aggregating the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the pieces of content; aggregating the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content for which aggregated information was formed to form new metadata for the select piece of content; and determining if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at least in part on the new metadata, as set forth in representative claim 11, are not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejections of claims 12-15, 18, and 19 (which also rely on the same base combination of Fuasaro and Ferman). Claims 20 and 21 We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 20 (Final Act. 12-16) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests the first aggregation processing module (218) is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with the 8 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 used pieces of content and the corresponding users (Fig. 2; if 35); a second aggregation processing module (308) configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new metadata (ifif 42, 46; Figs. 2 and 3); and an update processing module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to create current metadata (if 32). In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants' contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or suggest the first aggregation processing module is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with the used pieces of content and the corresponding users; a second aggregation processing module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new metadata; and a update processing module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to create current metadata, as set forth in representative claim 20, are not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 20 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSIONS (I) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination teaches or suggests a first aggregation module, wherein the contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage, 9 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as recited in representative independent claim 1. (II) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 11, 16, and 17 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination teaches or suggests aggregating the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the pieces of content; aggregating the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content for which aggregated information was formed to form new metadata for the select piece of content; and determining if the select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at least in part on the new metadata as recited in representative independent claim 11. (III) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 as being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the combination teaches or suggests the first aggregation processing module is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated information associated with the used pieces of content and the corresponding users; a second aggregation processing module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new metadata; and a update processing module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current 10 Appeal2014-005868 Application 12/234,296 metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to create current metadata, as recited in representative independent claim 20. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation