Ex Parte Bugir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2014

11305873 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2014)

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.
11/305,873 12/16/2005 Taras Markian Bugir HAR59 1182
89003 7590 07/11/2014
William E. Curry
4450 S. Park Avenue, Unit 1819
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
EXAMINER
PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2014 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 TARAS MARKIAN BUGIR, CYNTHIA PARRISH,
and CANDACE HELGERSON
____________

Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,8731
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–4, 6–9, 16, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Harris Corporation
(App. Br. 1).
2 Claims 5 and 10–15 have been canceled.
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to “systems, program products and
methods of content management such as tracing content genealogy in the
media industry (e.g., film, photos, footage, documents, text).” (See Spec.
¶ 6).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A system to manage content and distribution of
media, the system comprising:
a communication network for transmitting media data:
at least one computer accessible to the communication
network to define a content management server, the content
management server having a processor and memory coupled to
the processor to store operating instructions therein;
a database accessible to the processor of the content
management server and including media files associated with
core metadata, applied metadata, and contextual metadata
records, the core metadata created by a producer of the media
data and not being allowed to change, the applied metadata
including attributes that identify usage and operational data of
the media data and being allowed to change based on rights
generated by a rights holder, and the contextual metadata
including usage-specific data that provides information needed
for usage of the media data in various environments and being
allowed to change based on business requirements, usage, and
the rights;
a plurality of content management developer computers
each positioned remote from the content management server
and accessible to the communication network and having a
processor, memory coupled to the processor to store operating
instructions therein and to receive media files, a display in
communication with the processor to display metadata, and an
interface in communication with the processor, to provide each
of the corresponding plurality of content management
developers with online access over the communication network
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

3
to the media files and associated metadata records to thereby
edit metadata rules and rights;
a plurality of user computers each positioned at a
respective plurality of user sites remote from the content
management server, remote from the plurality of content
management developer computers and accessible to the
communication network and having a processor and memory
coupled to the processor to store operating instructions therein
and to receive media files, a display in communication with the
processor to display metadata associated with the media files,
and a user interface in communication with the processor to
provide the respective user with access to the media files over
the communication network to thereby view and edit at least
portions of respective metadata records; and
content management program product stored in the
memory of the content management server to manage content
and distribution of media, the content management program
product including instructions to perform the operations of:
receiving a metadata record for a media file
responsive to user input to thereby associate metadata to
the media file;
receiving a request from a user to modify the
metadata record for the media file,
determining an identity of the user to thereby
determine if the user has pre-established permissions,
modifying the metadata record for the media file
responsive to user input and responsive to determining
the user has pre-established permissions, and
providing current auditing of modifications to the
metadata, and
creating one or more additional copies of the
metadata record by:
receiving a request to access a copy
function;
providing a copy form including an input
field for entering a number of copies, an input field
for entering a numbering scheme, and input field
for entering an attribute of the media data;
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

4
displaying a selection of metadata copy
value categories to copy, the copy value categories
including core metadata, applied metadata,
contextual metadata, and relationships, the core
metadata copy value category not capable of being
deselected; and
displaying the copied metadata value
categories selected by user for review or
modification by the user.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–4 and 6–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris (US 2002/0088000 A1), Borrett (US
2007/0050467 A1), Apparao (US 2007/0198563 A1), Mahar (US
2006/0106891 A1), and Marotta (US 2004/0006606 A1). (See Ans. 4-13).
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris, Borrett, Apparao, Mahar, Marotta, and Debique
(US 2005/0091283 A1). (See Ans. 13-14).3
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Morris for disclosing a
system for managing content and distribution of media recited in claim 1
(Ans. 4–7), on Borrett for teaching “contextual metadata” (Ans. 8), and on
Apparao for disclosing the operation of “providing current auditing of
modifications to the metadata” (Ans. 9). The Examiner further finds Mahar
teaches creating additional copies by “receiving a request to access a copy
function” (Ans. 9–10) and Marotta discloses “displaying a selection of
metadata copy value categories” (Ans. 10).

3 The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Appellants’ contentions are generally focused on the references
separately and ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the
combination of Morris with Borrett, Apparao, Mahar, and Marotta (see App.
Br. 5–12, Reply Br. 2–3). Appellants further argue the Examiner has not
provided proper motivation for the proposed combination of references and
instead, has relied on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 3–
5).
Based on a review of the references, we agree with the Examiner’s
reliance on In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (Ans. 16) and
further note that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See also In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With respect to Appellants’ argument that the system
tags disclosed in Morris are neither the same as the claimed core metadata,
nor “‘created by a producer of the media data’” (App. Br. 5–6), we agree
with the Examiner’s reading the claimed “usage and operational data” on the
labels for categorizing the media data of Morris, which is produced by the
user of the camera (Ans. 15 (citing Morris ¶ 28)). We further observe that
paragraph 29 of Morris describes metadata elements including the roles that
are allowed to access each metadata element. Contrary to Appellants’
contention (Reply Br. 2), the users and the developers of the system
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

6
described in Morris are identified by the roles that are allowed to access the
metadata based on “rights” or defined levels of access (Morris ¶ 29).
Regarding the teachings of Borrett, we also agree with the Examiner
that paragraphs 39–40 of the reference disclose contextual metadata as
usage-specific data defining information for usage of media data in different
environments (Ans. 18). As further found by the Examiner (id.), the
metadata disclosed in paragraph 40 of Borrett is edited or changed based on
the business requirements to provide the level of access corresponding to
those requirements. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Borrett teaches
away because virtual copies, not actual copies, are used (Reply Br. 2), we
agree with the Examiner’s response pointing to paragraph 34 of Borrett
describing that one actual version of each asset provided along with multiple
virtual copies (Ans. 18–19).
Appellants further contend Mahar fails to teach several other features
of claim 1 (App. Br. 9–11), whereas the Examiner has relied on Morris for
those features (see Ans. 19–20). Similarly, Appellants argue the Examiner’s
reliance on Marotta is not supported by evidence (App. Br. 12). In response,
the Examiner presents detailed findings and responses (Ans. 9–10, 19–20).
We also agree with these findings and conclusions and further observe that
the teachings of Morris, when considered in combination with Borrett,
Apparao, Mahar, and Marotta, support the Examiner’s § 103 ground of
rejection.
We also agree with the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the
references (Ans. 7–10, 21). As stated by the Supreme Court, “the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
Appeal 2011-005610
Application 11/305,873

7
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Alternatively stated, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. In
particular, we note that the Examiner properly explains (Ans. 21) that using
the management process of Borrett and Marotta allows using contextual
metadata that could be changed based on different business circumstances.
Therefore, in view of the analysis above, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 2–4, 6–9, 16, and 17 not argued separately, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–4, 6–9, 16, and 17 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw