Ex Parte Amidon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2015

12211895 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/211,895 09/17/2008 Christopher M. Amidon CT-MED-044/US (P288) 9332
71739 7590 03/20/2015
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
HO, BINH VAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2015 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
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. AMIDON, HAROLD
SUTHERLAND, and HUGH SVENDSEN
____________________

Appeal 2013-000907
Application 12/211,895
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system and
method for providing enhanced smart playlists with aggregated media
Appeal 2013-000907
Application 12/211,895

2
collections of a media sharing system. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operation of a user device of a user
comprising:

obtaining, at the user device of the user, personalized
metadata for each media item of at least a subset of a
plurality of media items accessible to the user device via
a media sharing system comprising one or more user
devices of one or more sharing users hosting the plurality
of media items and the user device of the user;

obtaining, at the user device of the user, a smart playlist
definition, the smart playlist definition comprising one or
more user criteria; and

populating, at the user device of the user, a smart playlist
based on a comparison of the one or more user criteria of
the smart playlist definition and the personalized
metadata for the at least the subset of the plurality of
media items.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cue
Garbow
US 2005/0240494 A1
US 2008/0091717 A1
Oct. 27, 2005
Apr. 17, 2008

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–16 and 18–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
being anticipated by Garbow. Final Rej. 2–25.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Garbow and Cue. Final Rej. 26–28.
Appeal 2013-000907
Application 12/211,895

3

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1–16 and 18–26
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Garbow. App.
Br. 6–8. The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding Garbow discloses “the
user device” as recited in independent claims 1 and 18?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding Garbow discloses “the
smart playlist definition further comprises information defining an order of
preference for the personalized metadata instances” as recited in claim 6?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Garbow does not disclose a user device, but instead,
discloses a master device. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellants, no one would reasonably consider the master device of Garbow
to be the recited user device. App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has
set forth with specificity where Garbow discloses each recited limitation.
Final Rej. 2–4, 16–18; Ans. 4–7. Appellants contend the device in Garbow,
upon which the Examiner relies, is labeled a “master device.” App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-000907
Application 12/211,895

4
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Garbow discloses the
“master device” may be any type of device, including a peer device.
Garbow, ¶ [0046]. Therefore, we determine the “master device” of Garbow
is a “user device.” Moreover, we are not persuaded this disclosure is
combining elements of different embodiments such that they would not
function, as argued by Appellants. Reply Br. 2–3. Instead, this disclosure
merely provides alternatives as to the type of device—whether the device is
labeled a master device or a peer device.
With respect to claim 6, Appellants argue Garbow merely discloses
“preference data” and not “defining an order” as recited. Reply Br. 3.
Instead, according to Appellants, Garbow lists criteria that could be
considered by Garbow’s playlist, but does not disclose “defining an order.”
Id.
Garbow describes:
musical preference data may include other information that may
indicate a user's particular like or dislike of a particular song or genre
of songs, e.g., a playback history such as a list of recently played
media files, one or more stored playlists, a personal rating
representing that user's personal like or dislike of various songs, etc.

Garbow, ¶ [0018]. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Garbow
discloses information defining an order of preferences. Specifically,
Garbow describes a personal rating representing a user’s musical preference
data. Id. Thus, we find Garbow discloses user’s personal preference data
(information) defining an order of preferences (rating).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Garbow discloses the invention as recited in claims 1, 18, and 6. The
remaining claims were not separately argued and thus, these claims fall with
Appeal 2013-000907
Application 12/211,895

5
their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1–16 and 18–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Garbow.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 17
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Garbow and Cue.
App. Br. 8. As set forth above in Issue 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that Garbow does not disclose “the user device.”
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Garbow and Cue.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Garbow is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Garbow and Cue is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv