Ex Parte Jellison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

14231833 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/231,833 04/01/2014 David C. Jellison JR.
86548 7590 04/03/2018
Garlick & Markison (IH)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
318-RCS-11-2013 3432
EXAMINER
CHEN, ZHITONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
MMurdock@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLEAR CHANNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
DAVID C. JELLISON, JR., DARREN GRANT DA VIS,
and JEFFREY LEE LITTLEJOHN
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention schedules broadcast content automatically. In
one aspect, a display facilitates recording custom voice tracks and indicates
whether media items scheduled on either side of the voice track slot in a
master log have been changed by local stations. To this end, the invention
(1) obtains data in the form of logs that specify particular time intervals and
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
their associated media, namely voice tracks and other media items, (2)
compares media items before and after a particular time interval, namely a
voice track slot, and (3) displays the result of that comparison, namely by
indicating whether there is full match, partial match, or no match. See
generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-f 106--07, 134--41; Fig. 26. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining a master broadcast log by executing a program
instruction in a computer, the master broadcast log including a master
voice track slot schedule in a predetermined position, a master prior
slot adjacent to and preceding the master voice track slot, and a master
subsequent slot adjacent to and following the master voice track slot:
obtaining a plurality of station broadcast logs associated with
particular broadcast stations by executing a program instruction in a
computer, the station broadcast logs including station voice track slots
corresponding to the master log voice track slot, station prior slots
adjacent to and preceding the station voice track slots, and station
subsequent slots adjacent to and following the station voice track
slots;
wherein the master prior slot, the master subsequent slot, the
station prior slots, and the station subsequent slots specify a media
item;
determining, on a station-by-station basis, by executing a program
instruction in a computer:
whether the media item specified by the master prior slot matches
the media items specified by the station prior slots of particular
stations; and
whether the media item specified by the master subsequent slot
matches the media items specified by the station slots of particular
stations;
2
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
for station-by-station determinations that result in a determination
that both the master prior slot specifies the same media item specified
by the station prior slot, and the master subsequent slot specifies the
same media specified by station subsequent slot, displaying full-match
indicator on a voice track recording interface;
for station-by-station determinations that result in determination
the either the master prior slot specifies the same media item specified
by the station prior slot, or the master subsequent slot specifies the
same media specified by station subsequent slot, displaying a partial-
match indicator on the voice track recording interface; and
for station-by-station determinations that result in a determination
that neither the master prior slot specifies the same media item
specified by the station prior slot, nor the master subsequent slot
specifies the same media specified by station subsequent slot,
displaying a no-match indicator on the voice track recording interface.
THE REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 15-17. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Littlejohn (US 2011/0087796 Al; Apr. 14, 2011), Hickey
1 Because the Examiner indicates in the Advisory Action mailed November
18, 2016 that a proposed amendment filed after final rejection correcting
"claim informalities" would be entered for appeal purposes, we presume that
the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 15) was
withdrawn in light of this entry. Therefore, the indefiniteness rejection is
not before us.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
24, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 28, 2016
(supplemented December 19, 2016) ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's
Answer mailed February 2, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed
March 29, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
(US 6,223,210 Bl; Apr. 24, 2011), and Phillips (US 2013/0007043 Al; Jan.
3, 2013). Final Act. 17-32.
THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
(1) recording a voice track by receiving media items, (2) comparing and
matching media items preceding and following the voice track, and (3)
displaying matching results for indicating whether the user is permitted to
mention a prior or subsequent media item. Final Act. 15-16; Ans. 5---6.
According to the Examiner, this process is not only well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the industry, steps (2) and (3) are similar to processes in
cases involving (1) collecting and comparing known information, and (2)
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options
that our reviewing court has identified as abstract ideas. Final Act. 15-16;
Ans. 5---6. The Examiner adds that recited limitations do not add
significantly more to the abstract idea because they merely recite generic
computing functionality to implement generic functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry. Final Act.
16-17; Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue that not only does the Examiner overgeneralize and
oversimplify the claims, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but
rather a technological tool that solves a problem in a technological context,
namely involving centralized control of broadcasting content over different
stations. App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 3-7. Appellants add that the claims
recite significantly more than transmitting media files and feedback
messages by addressing system complexities in generating meaningful
4
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
analysis results, nor does the claimed invention merely do something in a
computer in the same way it was done outside of a computer. Id.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20 by
concluding that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101?
This issue turns on whether the claimed invention is directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract idea and, if so, whether the claim's elements---considered
individually and as an ordered combination-transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea.
ANALYSIS
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under§ 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, we determine
whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2354--55. If so, we
then proceed to the second step and examine the claim's elements-both
individually and as an ordered combination-to determine whether the claim
contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
Alice Step One
Applying Alice step one, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
5
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, obtaining master and station
broadcast logs that include respective voice track slots as well as respective
media-specifying slots before and after the voice track slots. Claim 1 also
recites determining, on a station-by-station basis, whether media items in
master slots before and after the master voice track slot match media items
specified by corresponding station slots.
Claim 1 also recites displaying three different indications depending
on the result of this determination. First, if the master and station slots
before and after the voice track slot specify the same media item, then a full-
match indicator is displayed on a voice track recording interface. Second, if
the master and station slots either before or after the voice track slot specify
the same media item, then a partial-match indicator is displayed. And third,
if the master and station slots do not specify the same media item before or
after the voice track slot, a no-match indicator is displayed.
In essence, the recited method of claim 1 ( 1) obtains data in the form
of logs that specify particular time intervals and their associated media,
namely voice tracks and other media items, (2) compares media items before
and after a particular time interval, namely a voice track slot, and (3)
displays the result of that comparison, namely by indicating whether there is
full match, partial match, or no match.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 6-13; Reply
Br. 3-7), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea given the claimed invention's fundamental concept that essentially ( 1)
gathers data, (2) compares at least some of that data to identify matches, and
(3) displays the results of that comparison.
6
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
It well settled that collecting information is within the realm of
abstract ideas---even when the information is limited to particular content.
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016). It is also well settled that "analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are]
essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category." Id. at 1354.
And "merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis."
Id.
Similar to the claims at issue in Electric Power, the claimed invention
here gathers, manipulates, analyzes, and presents information of a specified
content, but does not use any particular inventive technology for performing
those functions. See also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360, 1366-67
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claims directed to (1) evaluating parsed object
structures according to previously-stored structures, and (2) presenting an
evaluated structure were directed to the abstract idea of parsing and
comparing data); Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d
1057, 1067 (noting that "methods that simply collect and compare data,
without applying the data in a step of the overall method", may be ineligible
under § 101 ). That the recited comparison-based determination is made on a
station-by-station basis does not change our conclusion, for such plural
comparisons are still part of the recited abstract idea, nor do they transform
the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea.
7
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
Appellants' reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) on pages 7 to 10 of the
Appeal Brief is misplaced. There, the claimed process used a combined
order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was
applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO,
837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated
characters using particular information and techniques-an improvement
over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to
an abstract idea. Id. at 1316.
But unlike McRo, the recited process of claim 1 merely ( 1) gathers
data, (2) compares at least some of that data to identify matches, and (3)
displays the results of that comparison-an abstract idea as noted previously.
That this comparison and display is used for centralized control of
broadcasting content over different stations as Appellants indicate (Reply
Br. 9) does not change our conclusion, for such field-of-use limitations do
not render the recited abstract idea patent-eligible. See Bilski v. Kappas, 561
U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (noting that Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)
"stands for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract
ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [idea] to a
particular technological environment") (internal quotation marks omitted).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Alice Step Two
Nor do the recited elements---considered individually and as an
ordered combination-transform the nature of claim 1 into a patent-eligible
8
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
application of the abstract idea to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than that idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
That a computer is used to obtain the master and station logs and
make the recited station-by-station determinations does not change our
conclusion. In short, this computer is merely a generic computing
component that uses conventional generic computing functions, such as (1)
gathering data, (2) comparing least some of that data to identify matches,
and (3) displaying the results of that comparison. Accord Final Act. 16-17.
In short, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing
components to do that which can be performed mentally or with a pen and
paper---exclusive mental functions ineligible for patent protection under
§ 101. See Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that the
recited components add efficiency, for any speed increase comes from the
capabilities of the generic computer components-not the recited process
itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")). Like
the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in
computer processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that
use generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at
1095 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
9
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
In short, merely reciting these generic computing components cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Id. at 2358. In other words, merely reciting an abstract idea while adding the
words "apply it with a computer" does not render an abstract idea non-
abstract: there must be more. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor does the
claimed invention improve the computer's functionality or efficiency, or
otherwise change the way that device functions. Cf Enfish LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
That a computer is used to obtain the master and station broadcast
logs is of no consequence here, for such data gathering steps are
insignificant extra-solution activity that is insufficient to render the claim
patent-eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en
bane), ajf'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of
the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be
insignificant extra-solution activity."); see also id. at 963 (characterizing
data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
We reach the same conclusion regarding the computer's displaying
the recited match indicators, for here again, merely displaying the result of a
comparison is merely insignificant post-solution activity that does not add
significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent-
eligible. See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 957; see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
590 (1978) (insignificant post-solution activity found to be insufficient to
impart patentability). Accord Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,
1242 (2016) (same). And, as noted previously, merely presenting the results
10
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more
(such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an
ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at
1354.
Lastly, to the extent that Appellants argue that the particular elements
recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 add significantly more to
the abstract idea (see Reply Br. 11 ), Appellants did not argue these specific
elements with particularity in the Appeal Brief. Compare App. Br. 6-14.
Consequently, these additional arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). Nevertheless, even if these arguments were timely raised
(which they were not), we still find them unpersuasive, for Appellants have
not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding that recording voice tracks
is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry, as is using an
editor for such voice tracks with the recited sections. That the editor
displays the recited match indications and waveforms under the recited
conditions does not change our conclusion, for here again, Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that the recited functionality is
generic computing functionality. See Final Act. 16-1 7.
For the foregoing reasons, then, the recited elements---considered
both individually and as an ordered combination---do not contain an
"inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20 under § 101.
11
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Littlejohn discloses
obtaining a master broadcast log and plural station broadcast logs as
claimed, but does not determine, on a station-by-station basis, whether
media items in a master slot before and after a master voice track slot
matches media items specified by corresponding station slots. Final Act.
17-19. The Examiner, however, cites Hickey for teaching this feature.
Final Act. 19-21.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Littlejohn and Hickey do
not display full-, partial-, or no-match indications for the respective recited
station-by-station determinations, the Examiner cites Phillips for teaching
this feature. Final Act. 21-23. According to the Examiner, displaying
known parameters for visual assistance is a well-known practice, and the
number of parameters and the particular arrangement or layout depends on
an application's requirements and is "user choice, not an inventive concept."
Ans. 9.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not compare
corresponding slots of a master and station log, let alone compare the slots
before and after a voice track as claimed. App. Br. 14--18; Reply Br. 14--16.
Appellants add that the cited references do not display the recited full-,
partial-, or no-match indicators. App. Br. 18-19. Appellants argue other
recited limitations summarized below.
12
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Littlejohn,
Hickey, and Phillips collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) the station-by-station media-item match determination and
associated indications recited in claim 1?
(2) the voice track editor recited in claim 6?
(3) the displays in the editor's first and third sections recited in claim
7?
( 4) the match indicator of claim 12?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, 15, and 18-20
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claim 1. As noted above, a key aspect of the claimed invention is
comparing, on a station-by-station basis, media items specified by
corresponding slots before and after voice track slots in a master broadcast
log and plural station logs. The claim further requires displaying a particular
indicator depending on the result of this comparison. First, for
determinations where the master and station slots before and after the voice
track slot specify the same media item, then a full-match indicator is
displayed on a voice track recording interface. Second, if the master and
station slots either before or after the voice track slot specify the same media
item, then a partial-match indicator is displayed. And third, if the master
and station slots do not specify the same media item before or after the voice
track slot, a no-match indicator is displayed.
13
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
These three determinations are directed to the three possibilities of
determining a match for media items before and after a voice track, namely a
full match, a partial match, or no match at all: indeed, these are the only
three possibilities.
These possibilities are nevertheless conditional limitations that need
not be satisfied to meet the claim. See MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2 l l l .04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing
Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
(precedential)). But since one condition must occur from the recited
determination, only one condition need be satisfied to meet claim I-not all
three. Therefore, to the extent that Appellants contend that all three recited
conditional limitations must occur to meet the claim (see App. Br. 18-19),
such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim for that
reason alone.
Nevertheless, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 even if all recited conditions had to be satisfied to meet the claim
(which they do not). First, it is undisputed that Littlejohn teaches obtaining
master and station broadcast logs that specify media items associated with
corresponding slots. See Final Act. 18-19; Ans. 9. As Littlejohn explains,
multiple secondary audio servers can function as slaves to a single primary
audio server 3, where the primary server plays media events specified in a
media log 11 directly to the secondary audio servers in real time. See
Littlejohn i-fi-128-29, 32, 35; Figs. 1-2, 4--5. Notably, a user interface on the
secondary workstation associated with the secondary audio servers can
permit playing or skipping particular media items with respect to the media
events received from the primary server, including playing a rotation before
14
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
or after playing local audio as shown in Figure 4. See Littlejohn i-f 34; see
also Ans. 9 (noting Littlejohn's ability to insert and skip media events with
respect to associated logs in connection with the functionality of Figures 8,
9, and 12).
Although these scheduling and playback determinations are
performed on a station-by-station basis, Littlejohn does not explicitly teach
comparing, on a station-by-station basis, media items specified by
corresponding slots before and after voice track slots in a master broadcast
log and plural station logs. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner's
reliance on Hickey for at least suggesting this comparison.
As shown in Hickey's Figure 2, a client computer, which the
Examiner equates with a local station (Ans. 8), receives a schedule log from
on-air server 2 (via voice-tracking server 4) in step 64 that is then read and
displayed. Hickey, col. 6, 1. 65 - col. 7, 1. 2. After the client computer
marks the log with an insertion point for a voice track, the associated
position is ultimately transferred to the on-air server that then checks a
sequencer and schedule log for conflicts, and if no conflicts exist, edits the
log accordingly in step 70. Hickey, col. 7, 11. 7-26. Then, the updated log is
transferred to the voice tracking server that ( 1) generates a segment for the
audio tracks before and after the insertion point (i.e., the "heads" and "tails"
segments associated with the voice track), 3 and (2) stores the segments.
Hickey, col. 7, 11. 24--31; Fig. 2 (step 72 ). After receiving the voice track's
position identification and file name, the client computer then checks
whether the required segments are stored locally and, if not, they are
3 "Heads" and "tails" are segments created from the beginning and end of a
track, respectively. See Hickey, col. 6, 11. 15-20.
15
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
retrieved via associated URLs. Hickey, col. 7, 11. 31--46; Fig. 2 (steps 7 4 and
76). For context, the client computer then plays the "heads" and "tails"
segments while recording the voice track. Hickey, col. 7, 11. 46--49; Fig. 2
(step 78).
This functionality at least suggests that there is some form of
master/station media-item comparison that occurs on a station-by-station
basis not only in the on-air server's conflict resolution process as the
Examiner indicates (Ans. 8), but also in connection with the client
computer's determining whether the requisite "heads" and "tails"
segments-namely those before and after a voice track-are stored locally.
These comparisons at least suggest indicating a match between respective
master and station "heads" and "tails" media items on both sides of a voice
track slot. That is, a mismatch would not only suggest a log-based conflict
at the on-air server, but also the need for the client computer to retrieve
missing "heads" and "tails" media items remotely after determining they are
not stored locally. Notably, such a mismatch would involve heads segments,
tails segments, or both.
In addition, displaying an associated indicator indicating a full match,
partial match, or no match on a voice track recording interface as claimed
would have been at least an obvious variation, particularly in view of
Phillips. Notably, Phillips' voice track search interface in Figure 5 not only
shows clips that match search results, but also associated spans 512 and
time line indicators 510.
Given this functionality, we see no reason why such indications could
not be applied to "heads" and "tails" media items, such as those on either
side of voice tracks in the Littlejohn/Hickey system, for such an application
16
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
would predictably indicate associated full matches, partial matches, or no
matches, at least with respect to these media items. Such an enhancement
uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-
an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). Appellants' arguments regarding the cited references'
individual shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 14--19; Reply Br. 14--16) do
not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 8-11, 14, 15, and 18-20 not argued separately
with particularity. 4
Claims 6, 13, and 16
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Claim 6 depends
from claim 5, and recites a voice track editor with (1) a first section
corresponding to a media item specified by the master prior slot, (2) a
second section corresponding to the master voice track slot, and (3) a third
section corresponding to the media item specified by the master subsequent
slot.
Although the Examiner cites Littlejohn and Phillips in the rejection,
the Examiner nonetheless refers to the functionality associated with
4 To the extent that the Examiner also finds that claim 1 is indefinite under
§ 112 given the Examiner's characterization in the obviousness rejection that
various recited limitations ostensibly render the claim "vague and non-
functional or indefinite" (Final Act. 23) (emphasis added), no such rejection
is before us.
17
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
Hickey's display in Figure 5 in the Answer. Compare Final Act. 25-26 with
Ans. 10. Despite this shift, we nonetheless see no harmful error in the
Examiner's reliance on Hickey's Figure 5 for at least suggesting a voice
track editor with the three recited sections, particularly in view of the
graphic display 228 of audio tracks before and after the current voice track,
and the associated controls, including a voice track recording control 230.
See Hickey, col. 9, 11. 21-28.
That the appropriate media items are displayed both before and after
the voice track in Hickey's Figure 5 at least suggests a match between
respective master and station "heads" and "tails" media items on both sides
of the voice track. That is, this very display of these media items suggests
that there not only was not a conflict at the on-air server in step 70 of Figure
2 preceding the retrieval of these media items, but also that the client
computer retrieved these items and stored them locally-a condition that at
least suggests a match of "heads" and "tails" media items in respective
master/station slots as noted previously. Appellants' arguments regarding
Phillips' and Hickey's alleged shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 19-20;
Reply Br. 17-18) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6, and claims 13 and 16 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 7
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 reciting, in the
first section, ( 1) displaying a no-match indication if the master prior slot
specifies a different media item than that specified by the station prior slot,
18
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
and (2) displaying a waveform if the master prior slot specifies the same
media item specified by the station prior slot.
Similarly, claim 7 recites, in the third section, (1) displaying a no-
match indication if the master subsequent slot specifies a different media
item than that specified by the station subsequent slot, and (2) displaying a
waveform if the master subsequent slot specifies the same media item
specified by the station subsequent slot.
Our emphasis on the term "if' underscores that the recited limitations
are conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet the claim. See
MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser). To be sure, the two limitations
associated with each section specify the only two possibilities with respect to
the corresponding master-slot media item, namely whether it is the same as
that in its counterpart station slot or not. Nevertheless, these possibilities are
conditional limitations that need not be satisfied to meet the claim. See id.
But since one condition must occur for each section, only one condition for
each section need be satisfied to meet claim 1. Therefore, to the extent that
Appellants contend that both recited conditions for each section must be
satisfied to meet the claim (see App. Br. 20), such arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
As noted previously, the fact that the appropriate media items are
displayed both before and after the voice track in Hickey's Figure 5 at least
suggests a match between respective master and station "heads" and "tails"
media items on both sides of the voice track. That is, this very display of
these media items suggests that there not only was not a conflict at the on-air
server in step 70 of Hickey's Figure 2 preceding the retrieval of these media
19
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
items, but also that the client computer retrieved these items and stored them
locally-a condition that at least suggests a match of "heads" and "tails"
media items in respective master/station slots as noted previously.
Given this functionality in light of Phillips' voice track search
interface in Figure 5 that shows clips that match search results and
associated spans, we see no error in the Examiner's rejection at least to the
extent that the cited prior art at least suggests displaying a waveform in the
first and third sections if the same media item is specified by the respective
master/station prior and subsequent slots. Conversely, the absence of these
"heads" and "tails" media items in the first and third sections would indicate
that there was no such match.
Although the media items in display 228 of Hickey's Figure 5 are not
shown explicitly as waveforms, they nonetheless represent audio tracks-
and their associated waveforms-before and after a voice track. See Hickey,
col. 9, 11. 20-23. In short, nothing in claim 7 precludes displaying such a
waveform representation. Nevertheless, to the extent that Appellants
contend that these displayed representations are not themselves waveforms,
such a display would have nevertheless been an obvious variation to display
not only the media items' duration, but also their amplitude-a known audio
display technique yielding a predictable result. See MICROSOFT COMPUTER
DICTIONARY 561 (5th ed. 2002) (defining "waveform" as "[t]he manner in
which a wave' s amplitude changes over time"); see also ADOBE AUDITION®
3 USER GUIDE, Adobe Sys. Inc. (2007), at 81-82 (describing displaying and
editing audio waveforms).
20
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
Appellants' arguments regarding Phillips' individual shortcomings
(App. Br. 20) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is
based on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F .2d at
1097.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7.
Claim 17
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17. Claim 17
recites limitations commensurate with those in method claim 7, but rather
recites a computer readable medium instead of a method.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim with
structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition
precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should
the condition occur. Schulhauser at 14--15. We see no reason to treat the
medium claim any differently.
Therefore, our interpretation of medium claim 17 differs from method
claim 7 because the structure, namely the medium comprising instructions to
perform the recited steps, is present regardless of whether the condition is
met and the step is actually performed. Nevertheless, we find that the cited
prior art collectively at least suggests both recited conditions.
As noted previously, Figure 5 of both Hickey and Phillips collectively
at least suggest displaying a waveform in the first and third sections if the
same media item is specified by the respective master/station prior and
subsequent slots-slots that are also adjacent to the voice track slot as
21
Appeal2017-006995
Application 14/231,833
recited in claim 17. Conversely, the absence of these "heads" and "tails"
media items in the first and third sections would indicate that there was no
such match.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 17.
Claim 12
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 reciting that
each match indicator indicates one of (1) a preceding-slot match, (2) an
after-slot match, and (3) a full match. Despite Appellants' arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 12), we find that the cited prior art
collectively at least suggests at least one of the recited indicators for the
reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20 under
§§ 101and103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
22
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No.
Notice of References Cited
14/231,833
Examiner Art Unit
2600
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name
A US-
B US-
c US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name
N
0
p
Q
R
s
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
u ADOBE AUDITION® 3 USER GUIDE, Adobe Sys. Inc. (2007), p. 81-82
v
w
x
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Page 1 of 1
Classification
Classification
ADOBE" AUDITION@ 3
USER GUID,E
Adobe' Audition' 3.0 User Gnide for Windows'
If this guide is distributed with software that includes an end t1ser agreemen~ this guide, a~ well as the software described in it, is fornishcd under license
and may be u~cd or copied only in accordance wllh the terms of sucl1 licemc. Except as permitted by any such license, no part of this guide may be
reproduced, slored in a retrieval system, or tmnsmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanlcal, recording, or otherwise, withont the prior
written permission of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Please nole that the content in this guide is protected under copyright law even if it 15 not distributed
with software that includes an c~d user license agreement. ..
The content of tliis guide is furnished for infonnatlonal use only, is sub,iect to change without notice, and 1hould not be comlrued as a commitment by
Adobe Systems Incorporated. Adobe Systems Incorporated a~sumes no rcsponsibili~r or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear in the
informational content contained Jn this guide.
Please remember lhat e..'tisting artwork or image~ that you may wanl to include in your project may be protected under copyrlght law. The unauthorized
incorporation of such material into your new work could be a violation of the rights of the copyright owner. Please be sure Lo obtain any permission
required from the copyright owner.
Any references to company names in sample templates are for demonstration purposes only and ate not intended to refer to any actual orgaitli.ation.
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Adobe Audition, Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Creative Suite, and Photoshop are either rcgislered trademarks or trademarks
of Adobe Systems Jncorporated in the United State~ and/ or other cmmtries.
Dolby ls a trndemark of Dolby Laboratories. Micn1~oft and Windows are either registered trademarks or trndernarks of Microsoft Corporation in the
DEC is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. Sun is a trademark or registered tl'ademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and
other-countries. All other trademarks are the properly of their respective owners.
Iv!PEG Layer3 audio compression technology is licensed by Frnunhofor ITS and 'l'homson.
mp3PRO altdio coding tecluiologies licensed from Coding Technologies, Fraunhofrr !IS and Thomson Multin1edia.
Re Wire is a Propdlcrhead product.
of "Commercial Computer Software" and ''Commcrdal Computer Software Documentation;' as mch terms arc used in 48 CER. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R.
lhe Commercial Conniutcr
Software and Commercial Computer Software Documentation are being licensed to US. Governmcnl end users (a) only as Commercial Items and (b)
11~th only those rights as are granted lo All Programs> Accessories> Entertainment (or Multi-
e speaker icon in the system tray
rag Volume sliders as needed. (Below the sliders) ensure
se Options> Properties, select Recording1 and click OK
me sliders as needed.
s mixe1; choose Options > Windows Recording Mixer in
Chapter 6: Editing audio files
Displaying audio in Edit View
Choose an audio display
In Edit View, you can choose any of four displays for audio data. Each shows you a different visual representation
of sound waves. If you open a stereo fik the left channel appears at the top and the right channel appears at the
bottom. If you open a mono file, its single channel fills the total height of the Main panel.
•:• In the toolbar, select Waveform Display :l, Spectral Frequency Display • I Spectral Pan Display •) or
Spectral Phase Display I .
For more information, see "Sound fundamentals" on page 11 and ((Comparing Edit View and Multitrack View'1
on page 30.
About Waveform Display
Waveform Display shows a waveform as a series of positive and negative peaks. The x-axis (horizontal ruler)
measures time, and the y-axis (vertical ruler) measures amplitude-the loudness of the audio signal. Quiet audio
has both lower peaks and lower valleys than loud audio. You can customize Waveform Display by changing the
vertical scale, colors, and line visibility.
With its clear indication of amplitude Waveform Display is perfect for identif)fog percussive changes in
vocals) drums) and more. To find a particular spoken word, for example, simply look for the peak at the first
syllable and the valley after the last
~ Par information about customizing Wavef arm Display, search Adobe Audition Help for tolor preferences" and
a ('Display preferences.')
181
821 CHAPTER 6
Editing audio files
About Spectral Frequency Display
Spectral Frequency Display shows a waveform by its frequency components, where the Hxis (horizontal ruler)
measures time and the y-axls (vertical ruler) measures frequency. This view lets you analyze audio data to see
which frequencies are most prevalent. Brighter colors represent greater amplitude components. Default colors
range from dark blue (low-amplitude frequencies) to bright yellow (high-amplitude frequencies). You can modify
display settings for Spectral Frequency Display using the Spectral Controls panel.
Spectral Frequency Display is perfect for removing unwanted sounds1 such as coughs and other artifacts. This is
known as frequency-space editing.
Spectml Frequency Display, with high Fequencies selected
For more information, see ('Techniques for restoring audid' on p;
About Spectral Pan Display
Spectral Pan Display shows the pan (left-right stereo) position of
visualize the sound locations in the stereo plane. The x-axis (hori
(vertical ruler) measures pan position) with the top of the display.
the display (100%) representing full right. Brighter colors
settings for Spectral Pan Display using the Spectral Controls pant