Ex Parte Bodin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2010

10832005 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM KRESS BODIN
and DERRAL CHARLES THORSON
____________

Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 26, 2010
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-33, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

2

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to providing collaborative event media
content. A structured document is created in dependence upon original
media content, where the structured document includes one or more
structural elements. A grammar is created for the collaborative event media
content, where the grammar includes grammar elements each of which
includes an identifier for at least one structural element of the structured
document. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method for providing collaborative event media content, the
method comprising:
creating, in dependence upon original media content, a
structured document, the structured document further comprising one
or more structural elements;
creating a grammar for the collaborative event media content,
wherein the grammar includes grammar elements each of which
includes an identifier for at least one structural element of the
structured document.

Prior Art
Cragun 6,161,112 Dec. 12, 2000
Gimson 2003/0158969 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Fukatsu 2004/0141016 A1 Jul. 22, 2004
(filed Nov. 25, 2003)
Schmid 2005/0171780 A1 Aug. 4, 2005
(filed Feb. 3, 2004)
Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

3

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 23-25, and 27-29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Gimson and Schmid.1
Claims 4, 15, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over
Gimson, Schmid, and Fukatsu.
Claims 8-11, 19-22, and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
over Gimson, Schmid, and Cragun.
The Examiner expressly withdraws (Ans. 14) an earlier rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for non-statutory subject matter.

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gimson and Schmid teaches “creating a grammar for the
collaborative media content, wherein the grammar includes grammar
elements each of which includes an identifier for at least one structural
element of the structured document” as recited in claim 1?

1 The statement of the rejection (Ans. 6) includes claim 31 as being rejected
over Gimson and Schmid, but the claim is not addressed in the body of the
rejection. We conclude that claim 31 is rejected only over the combination
of Gimson, Schmid, and Cragun. See Ans. 11.
Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gimson
1. Content from a web page, such as text, music, or graphics, can
be assimilated by electronic devices, such as mobile phones and desktop
computers. The content includes machine readable structural information
reflecting structure in the substance of the content, such as chapters, and
instructions on the preferred manner the author wishes to see the content
presented to the author. This structure is embedded in the content using a
device independent markup language. Abstract.
2. Figure 3 provides an example of the content for a web page
displaying a railway timetable. The example shows the role of the tags in a
computer language known as Extensible Markup Language (XML).
Referring to Figure 3a, the content of the web page has four sections, or
chapters. XML tag 300 denotes a title section. Tag 302 denotes a timetable
section, in which the full timetable is stored. Tag 304 denotes a search
request section which enables a user to search for particular train departures.
Tag 306 denotes a book requesting section which enables a user to book a
ticket for a particular train. ¶ [0033].
Schmid
3. Schmid teaches an object model that exposes speech-related
functionality to applications that target a managed code environment.
Abstract, ¶ [0006].
4. A grammar component is configured to enable a developer to
quickly and easily generate grammars that conform to the standardized
Speech Recognition Grammar Specification (SRGS) adopted by W3C (the
world wide web consortium). The SRGS standard is an XML format and
Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

5
structure for defining speech recognition grammars, and includes a small
number of XML elements, such as a grammar element. ¶ [0048].
5. Figure 7 illustrates an XML implementation of defining a
grammar. The grammar is instantiated, and a rule for the grammar is
generated. The rule, named “PlayByArtist,” is used by a command and
control application to identify a spoken command to a media component to
play music based on the name of the artist. The rule contains a number of
elements. The first element is “Play” and contains a “one-of” element. The
“one-of” element is a list of all of the different artists for which the media
component has stored music. Thus, the grammar recognizes the spoken
command “Play Band ABC” where “Band ABC” is the name of an artist or
band. ¶¶ [0070],[0092].

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

6
ANALYSIS
Section 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 23-
25,and 27-29
Appellants contend that the combination of Gimson and Schmid does
not teach “creating a grammar for the collaborative event media content,
wherein the grammar includes grammar elements each of which includes an
identifier for at least one structural element of the structured document.”
Br. 8. In particular, Appellants contend that Schmid never once mentions
“structural element” or “grammar elements each of which includes an
identifier for at least one structural element of the structured document.”
Br. 10. Appellants also contend that Schmid, in paragraphs 59 and 70,
discloses creating a grammar having an XML format and structure, but none
of the XML grammar elements includes an identifier for at least one
structural element of a structured document created in dependence upon the
original media content. Br. 11-12.
The phrase “structural element of a structured document created in
dependence upon the original media content” as recited in claim 1
encompasses a name of a band for a structured XML music document as
suggested by Gimson. FF 1, 2. Schmid teaches creating a grammar element
that recognizes a command to play band ABC, where band ABC is the name
of an artist or band. FF 3-5. The claim phrase “identifier for at least one
structural element” encompasses the name of the band in the XML grammar
element taught by Schmid.
Appellants contend that Gimson and Schmid, even if combined, do
not teach “providing collaborative event media content” as recited in the
preamble of claim 1. Br. 15-16. Appellants describe “collaborative event
Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

7
media content” as a structured document which includes a plurality of
structural elements and classification identifiers for the structural elements.
Spec. 14:26-28. The phrase “providing collaborative media event content”
therefore encompasses the structured document provided by Gimson. FF 1,
2.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner has not provided a
rational underpinning to combine Gimson and Schmid. Br. 14-15. Creating
an XML structured document including a structural element as taught by
Gimson, and creating a grammar that identifies the structural element as
taught by Schmid appears to represent the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that yields the predictable result of providing
speech related functionality to command and control applications as
suggested by Schmid.
Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 23-25, and 27-29, but rely on
arguments given with respect to claim 1. Br. 14. Because we find the
arguments for claim 1 unpersuasive, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 23-25, and 27-29.

Section 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 8-11, 15, 19-22, 26, and 30-33
Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 4, 8-11, 15, 19-22, 26, and 30-33, but rely on arguments given
with respect to claim 1. Because we find the arguments for claim 1
unpersuasive, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 8-11, 15, 19-22,
26, and 30-33.

Appeal 2009-005074
Application 10/832,005

8
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gimson and Schmid teaches “creating a grammar for the
collaborative media content, wherein the grammar includes grammar
elements each of which includes an identifier for at least one structural
element of the structured document” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 23-25, and 27-29
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Gimson and Schmid is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4, 15, and 26 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over
Gimson, Schmid, and Fukatsu is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8-11, 19-22, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) over Gimson, Schmid, and Cragun 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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF)
c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP
P.O. BOX 1469
AUSTIN TX 78767-1469