Ex Parte Obrador

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10117033 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PERE OBRADOR
____________________

Appeal 2009-002569
Application 10/117,033
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002569
Application 10/117,033

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

According to Appellant, the invention relates to “systems and methods
of managing media objects” (Spec. 1:3).

Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of managing a collection of media
objects, comprising:

accessing a collection of media objects, including
at least one media file of indexed, temporally-ordered data
structures;

generating links between media objects and
respective data structures of the media file, each link being
browsable from a given data structure to a linked media object
and from the linked media object to the given data structure;
and

storing the browsable links in one or more media
object linkage data structures.

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 8, 14-27, 32, and 38-50 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platt (U.S. 2003/0009469 A1,
Jan. 9, 2003) and Borman (U.S. 6,226,655 B1, May 1, 2001).
Appeal 2009-002569
Application 10/117,033

3
Claims 4-7, 9-13, 28-31, and 33-37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platt, Borman, and Zhang
(U.S. 2003/0184579 A1, Oct. 2, 2003).

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Borman Reference
Borman discloses that:
The jump site window 308 has an associated drop down list
accessible by selecting drop-down [] list button 310. The list
comprises parsed hot links. These hot-links are extracted from
a file initially retrieved by the browser. Any one of the hot-
links in the parsed list can be selected by the user with a mouse.
This drop-down list provides one method for selecting a
specific Internet site to jump to.
(Col. 6, ll. 55-61.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-50
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Borman and Platt discloses generating links between media objects and
respective data structures of the media file?
Appeal 2009-002569
Application 10/117,033

4

The Examiner finds that “Borman teaches two-way browsable links
and hot-links which are generated between initially and following retrieved
files . . . ; and between objects, the icons, and jumper menu bars, the data
structures as shown in Fig. 3” (Ans. 17).
Appellant contends that “neither Platt nor Borman discloses or
suggests generating links between media objects and respective ones of the
indexed, temporally-ordered data structures of a media file, as recited in
claim 1.” (App. Br. 14.)
We agree with Appellant. For example, the Examiner relies on
Borman for teaching the feature of “generating links …,” as set forth in
representative claim 1 (Ans. 6). While Borman teaches links, Borman
generates links at best by extracting the links from a file retrieved by the
browser (FF). However, the Examiner has not shown, and we do not readily
find, how Borman’s links are generated between media objects and
respective data structures of the media file, as set forth in claim 1. Instead,
the cited portion of Borman merely discloses hot-links that are extracted
from a file initially retrieved by the browser. The Examiner has not
demonstrated how such extracted links in Borman (or Platt) are between
media objects and respective data structures of the media file. The mere fact
the Borman discloses links is not enough to suggest the links as claimed.
Thus, we find the Examiner has erred in combining Platt with
Borman. Independent claim 25 is commensurate in scope with
representative claim 1, and likewise, was rejected under § 103 (a) over
Borman and Platt. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
Appeal 2009-002569
Application 10/117,033

5
independent claims 1 and 25, and dependent claims 2-24 and 26-49 which
stand therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 14-27, 32, and 38-50,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over Platt and Borman is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7, 9-13, 28-31, and 33-37, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over Platt, Borman, and Zhang is reversed.

REVERSED

ke

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528