Ex Parte Hawkins et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

10802589 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/802,589 03/17/2004 Ronald Bruce Hawkins 50T5731.01 3873
36738 7590 06/28/2012
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
STRONCZER, RYAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD BRUCE HAWKINS, RICHARD BERGER, and
KEITH KOCHO

___________

Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4-15. Claims 3 and 16-22 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a playlist of multimedia content
generated based on the results of a search algorithm operating on a metadata
database connected to a network. The search algorithm utilizes a search
vector that is generated using demographic data and consumer profile data,
based on a consumer search request. (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for generating a playlist of multimedia titles,
comprising:
at least one database;
at least one digital processor accessing the database and
configured for communicating with a client device over a network, the
processor executing logic including:
accessing at least one database containing data representing
heterogenous [sic] multimedia content;
generating plural search vectors by:
accessing at least one database containing demographic data;
using the at least one search vector, generating plural playlists
and associating the playlist with respective consumers, such that the
consumers can access their respective playlists over the network,
wherein each playlist is uniquely associated with a respective
consumer whose profile was used to generate the playlist;
recalling a playlist for a respective consumer based on a
consumer ID identifying the consumer;
presenting the playlist on a client device associated with the
respective consumer;
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

3
receiving at least one selection from the playlist; and
processing the selection by transmitting to the client device a
multimedia stream corresponding to the selection.

5. A system for generating a playlist of multimedia titles,
comprising:
at least one database;
at least one digital processor accessing the database and
configured for communicating with a client device over a network, the
processor executing logic including:
accessing at least one database containing data representing
heterogenous [sic] multimedia content;
generating at least one search vector by undertaking at least one
of:
accessing at least one database containing data selected from
the group consisting of third party marketing data, demographic data,
consumer profile data, and consumer search history data; and
using the search vector, generating a playlist and associating the
playlist with the consumer, such that the consumer can access the
playlist over the network, wherein the logic comprises signifying
whether all content in the playlist is available for playback (playlist is
“ready”) or is pending (playlist is “incomplete”).

8. A method for generating a multimedia playlist for display
thereof to a consumer operating a client device communicating with a
network, comprising:
accessing profile data associated with the consumer;
accessing historical search and purchasing data;
retrieving historical search and purchasing data based on the
profile data associated with the user;
using retrieved historical search and purchasing data, searching
for multimedia content, the multimedia content not being constrained
to be homogenous; and
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

4
generating a playlist based on the searching act.

Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Pontenzone (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2002/0152278 A1) and Hori (U.S. Patent No. 7,209,942 B1).
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Pontenzone, Asmussen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2002/0042923 A1) and Hempleman (U.S. Patent No. 6,243,725 B1).
Claims 8-12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Pontenzone, Asmussen, and Holtz (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2002/0053078 A1).
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Pontenzone, Asmussen, Holtz, and Hempleman.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 4
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5-6; see also
Reply Br. 1) that the combination of Pontenzone and Hori would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitation “presenting the playlist on a client device associated with the
respective consumer.”
The Examiner found that the listener profiles block 370 of Pontenzone
for registered listeners with the ability to view playlist details and add songs
to that playlist corresponds to the limitation “presenting the playlist on a
client device associated with the respective consumer.” (Ans. 5, 12-13;
Pontenzone, ¶ [0067]; Fig. 1.)
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

5
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Pontenzone teaches
“presenting the playlist on a client device associated with the respective
consumer.” A relevant plain meaning of “present” is “to offer to view” or
“show.” MERRIMAN-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 921 (10th ed.
1999). Pontenzone relates to a system for managing delivery of content over
a network (e.g., songs or music over the Internet) (Abstract), including a
listener profiles block 370 used for registered listeners (¶ [0030]; Fig. 1). “A
user (e.g., a music manager or a registered listener), associated with a
playlist may view the playlist details and add songs to the playlist . . . .”
(¶ [0067].) Because the user of Pontenzone can “view the playlist” for
added songs and playlist details, Pontenzone therefore, teaches the limitation
“presenting the playlist on a client device associated with the respective
consumer.”
Appellants argue that “the allegedly ‘inherent’ elements of recalling a
playlist for a respective consumer based on a consumer ID identifying the
consumer and then presenting the playlist on a client device associated with
the respective consumer are not ‘necessarily’ in Pontenzone.” (App. Br. 6;
see also Reply Br. 1.) However, as discussed previously, because the
playlist of Pontenzone can be viewed for added songs and details,
Pontenzone expressly teaches the limitation “presenting the playlist.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pontenzone
and Hori would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “presenting the playlist on a client device associated with the
respective consumer.”
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

6
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5; see
also Reply Br. 1-2) that the combination of Pontenzone and Hori would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitations “receiving at least one selection from the playlist” and
“processing the selection by transmitting to the client device a multimedia
stream corresponding to the selection.”
The Examiner found that streaming music according to the order
specified in the playlist of Pontenzone corresponds to the limitations
“receiving at least one selection from the playlist” and “processing the
selection by transmitting to the client device a multimedia stream
corresponding to the selection.” (Ans. 13-14; Pontenzone, ¶ [0030].) We
agree with the Examiner.
A system front end 300 of Pontenzone that runs on a Web server
connected to the Internet includes operating blocks for “a streaming music
and meta data engine block 320 which directs the trafficking of streaming
broadcasts to listeners.” (¶ [0030].) Therefore, Pontenzone teaches the
limitation “receiving at least one selection from the playlist.” In addition,
the system front end 300 of Pontenzone includes “a playlist generator 350
which determines the order of broadcast content.” (Id.) Therefore,
Pontenzone teaches the limitation “processing the selection by transmitting
to the client device a multimedia stream corresponding to the selection.”
Appellants argue that “the limitations of receiving a selection from the
playlist and processing the selection by transmitting to the client device a
multimedia stream corresponding to the selection are not even mentioned,
since as analyzed above Pontenzone does not in fact allow editing of an
active playlist and thus teaches away from Claim 1.” (App. Br. 5; see also
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

7
Reply Br. 1-2.) However, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, streaming
music according to the order specified by the playlist of Pontenzone
corresponds to the limitations “receiving at least one selection from the
playlist” and “processing the selection by transmitting to the client device a
multimedia stream corresponding to the selection.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pontenzone
and Hori would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitations “receiving at least one selection from the playlist” and
“processing the selection by transmitting to the client device a multimedia
stream corresponding to the selection.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 4 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.

Claims 5-7
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Pontenzone, Asmussen and
Hempleman would not have rendered obvious independent claim 5, which
includes the disputed limitation “wherein the logic comprises signifying
whether all content in the playlist is available for playback (playlist is
‘ready’) or is pending (playlist is ‘incomplete’).”
The Examiner found that the playability validation of Pontenzone for
song recording data corresponds to the limitation “wherein the logic
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

8
comprises signifying whether all content in the playlist is available for
playback (playlist is ‘ready’) or is pending (playlist is ‘incomplete’).”
(Ans. 7-8, 14-15; Pontenzone, ¶¶ [0067], [0073].) We agree with the
Examiner.
The user of Pontenzone can “view the playlist details and add songs to
the playlist, provided the song has been properly encoded, i.e. is playable, in
all required formats of the system.” (¶ [0067].) Therefore, Pontenzone
teaches the limitation “whether all content in the playlist is available for
playback (playlist is ‘ready’).” Furthermore, the “system 100 preferably
only allows songs to be added to playlists if they are playable in each
encoding format specified by system 100.” (¶ [0073].) Therefore,
Pontenzone teaches the limitation “whether all content in the playlist is . . .
pending (playlist is ‘incomplete’).”
Appellants argue that “[v]alidating that a song on a playlist conforms
to all required formats is not at all a signal of whether a playlist is ready or
incomplete, but rather merely an indication as to whether any song in
isolation has satisfied the validation criteria” (App. Br. 6) and “[t]he
examiner has failed to produce evidence that a seeming apple (validation)
equals a claimed orange (signifying availability)” (Reply Br. 2). However,
the claimed language “signifying whether all content in the playlist is
available for playback (playlist is ‘ready’) or is pending (playlist is
‘incomplete’)” is broad enough to encompass the validation process of
Pontenzone.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Pontenzone, Asmussen and Hempleman would have rendered obvious
independent claim 5, which includes the limitation “wherein the logic
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

9
comprises signifying whether all content in the playlist is available for
playback (playlist is ‘ready’) or is pending (playlist is ‘incomplete’).”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5, and Appellants
have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 5.

Claims 8-12 and 15
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6-7; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Pontenzone, Asmussen and Holtz
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 8, which includes the
disputed limitation “the multimedia content not being constrained to be
homogenous.”
The Examiner found that the multimedia or video content of
Pontenzone corresponds to the limitation “the multimedia content not being
constrained to be homogenous.” (Ans. 15; Pontenzone, ¶ [0026].) We agree
with the Examiner.
The system of Pontenzone “can also be used for other types of
content, such as multimedia or video content” such as “the distribution or
streaming of multimedia-based music videos (or songs).” (¶ [0026].)
Therefore, Pontenzone teaches heterogeneous content (i.e., multimedia-
based music videos or songs) and thus, the limitation “the multimedia
content not being constrained to be homogenous.”
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

10
Appellants argue that the “rejection fails to account for a claim
limitation” of “multimedia content . . . not constrained to be homogenous”
because “Pontenzone expressly teaches a system that requires its titles to be
constrained to homogeneous audio content.” (App. Br. 6-7; see also Reply
Br. 2.) However, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Pontenzone also
teaches multimedia-based music videos or songs and therefore, the
limitation “the multimedia content not being constrained to be homogenous”
(¶ [0026]).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Pontenzone, Asmussen and Holtz would have rendered obvious independent
claim 8, which includes the limitation “the multimedia content not being
constrained to be homogenous.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 9-12 and 15 depend from claim 8, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 9-12 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 8.

Claims 13 and 14
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 13 and 14 separately (App. Br. 7), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants summarily allege that
“[t]hese claims inherit the patentability of their base claim.” (Id.) We are
not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
Appeal 2009-014883
Application 10/802,589

11
claim 8, from which claims 13 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-15 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

rwk