Ex Parte Curtis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

11955534 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

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.
11/955,534 12/13/2007 Scott Curtis CT-MED-031/US (P117) 5826
15990 7590 06/27/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
Scerna Research, LLC
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
HO, RUAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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
____________

Ex parte SCOTT CURTIS and HUGH SVENDSEN
____________

Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3–9, and 11–34, which are all the claims pending in this
application as claims 2 and 10 have been canceled previously. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ABO ENTERPRISES,
LLC (App. Br. 4).

Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to systems and methods for controlling
or adjusting importance levels assigned to tags by manipulating
corresponding tag representations or a tag group representation displayed to
the user (see Spec. ¶ 4). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads
as follows:
1. A method comprising:
analyzing a media collection in order to determine an
importance level of a tag, the tag used for describing digital
content;
presenting on a display of a device having a control system
a tag representation of the tag; and
enabling the resizing of the tag representation to thereby
adjust the importance level assigned to the tag, wherein at least
one of the preceding actions is performed on at least one
electronic hardware device.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–9, and 11–34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Amidon (US 7,693,906 B1; iss. Apr. 6, 2010) and Anderson
(US 8,065,601 B2; iss. Nov. 22, 2011) (see Ans. 2–12).
Issue on Appeal
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Amidon and Anderson because the combination of references does not teach
or suggest “enabling the resizing of the tag representation to thereby adjust
the importance level assigned to the tag,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Independent Claims 1, 22, and 23
Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Amidon and merely
contend that enlarging a tag bar disclosed in Anderson is not the same as the
disputed claim limitation because “[a] tag bar is not a tag representation of a
tag used for describing digital content” (App. Br. 19). In response, the
Examiner points out that Anderson discloses the disputed limitation because
“‘[i]n one implementation the tags presented have different relative sizes
based on their importance or frequency of use by either this user or a set of
users’” (Ans. 13 (citing Anderson col. 2, ll. 18–24)). Appellants argue that
the cited portion of Anderson “just teaches that the tags can have different
sizes or be placed anywhere on the screen” and “[t]he fact that a tag can
have different sizes does not inherently teach that tags are resized” (Reply
Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner
erred. We agree with and adopt as our own the findings and reasoning of the
Examiner. We specifically agree with the Examiner’s findings and
explanation that Anderson discloses that tags may have different sizes based
on their level of importance, whereas Amidon was relied on as disclosing
edits or changes are made to the tag’s level of importance (Final Act. 4
(citing Amidon col. 4, ll. 51–67); see also Amidon col. 5, ll. 10–17).
Appellants attempt to individually distinguish Amidon and Anderson,
rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references (see App.
Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534

4
Br. 19–20). Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not . . . that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). Furthermore, as
stated by the Supreme Court, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account 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). Further, the Court stated that “[t]he obviousness
analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words
teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” Id. at 419. Here, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine Anderson’s teachings
of tags having different sizes based on their level of importance with
Amidon’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (see Ans. 2–3).
Independent Claims 25 and 27
Appellants contend that the cited passages in columns 2 and 3 of
Anderson relate to visual cues that “do not adjust the importance level
assigned to the tag or the tags in a tag group” and include no teaching or
suggestion that “discloses or renders obvious changing a font of the tag
representation or the tag group representation” (App. Br. 21). Appellants
further argue “changing Anderson to use the visual cues to adjust the
importance level would change the principle of operation of Anderson” (id.).
In response, the Examiner points out that Anderson discloses the
disputed limitation because “changing the font and/or color of a tag is
Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534

5
considered as one of the GUI manipulations, which is disclosed in Anderson
column 2[,] lines 38-47 (“a change of color of tags” in lines 45-46 and
“highlighting one or more tags” in column 3[,] lines 11-12)” (Ans. 14–15).
The Examiner further finds “[s]ince Amidon discloses a Graphical User
Interface (GUI) produced by its Media Management Application, it is
obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention
was made to incorporate GUI manipulations, such as changing font and
color, into the Media Management Application” (Ans. 15).
We agree with and adopt as our own the findings and reasoning of the
Examiner. We specifically agree with the Examiner’s findings and
explanation that Anderson discloses tags may have different representations
based on their level of importance, whereas Amidon was relied on as
disclosing edits or changes made to the tag’s level of importance (Final Act.
4 (citing Amidon col. 4, ll. 51–67); see also Amidon col. 5, ll. 10–17). We
also observe that it is Amidon that is modified based on the teachings of
Anderson, which does not change the principle of operation of Anderson.
Independent Claims 31–34
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 31–34 based on
arguments similar to those raised for clam 1 and further contend
No teaching could be found in Anderson that discloses or
renders obvious the features of analyzing a plurality of
recommended media items received from a social network
service using the plurality of importance levels to score the
plurality of recommended media items, the plurality of tag
representations associated with the plurality of recommended
media items. Amidon fails to cure the deficiencies of Anderson.
(App. Br. 27).
In response, the Examiner explains:
Appeal 2014-006742
Application 11/955,534

6
Anderson is cited in the rejection of claim 31 in combination of
Amidon. Anderson column 2 line 64 to column 3 line 4 discloses,
as cited, “[t]he number and variety of tags 24 appearing in list 35
can vary greatly depending on the particular application. Thus,
for example, it may be appropriate for list 35 to include those
tags which a particular user or group of users have used in the
past”. The claimed “social network service” serves as a
“particular application” for a “group of users”.
(Ans. 18). We agree with and adopt as our own the findings of the
Examiner.
Remaining Independent Claims
Appellants contend the patentability of the remaining independent
claims 8, 24, 26, and 28–30 based on the same reasoning presented for claim
1 (App. Br. 20–24). We are not persuaded of Examiner’s error.
Additionally, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings
and stated rationale with respect to the combination of the references that are
applied in rejecting these claims (see Ans. 15–21).

DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–9, and
11–34.
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