Ex Parte Plache et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

13654061 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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.
13/654,061 10/17/2012 Kenneth S. Plache 2010P183-US1 1096
(ALBR:0472)
42982 7590 09/14/2017
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
MIAN, MUHAMMAD U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
howell@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
raintellectu alproperty @ ra.rockwell .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH S. PLACHE, MICHAEL D. KALAN,
KEITH M. HOGAN, and CHRISTOPHER E. STANEK
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In papers filed August 11, 2017, Appellants request a rehearing under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision on Appeal (“Decision”) of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), dated June 14, 2017. In the Decision, we
affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—26. Dec. 7.
ANALYSIS
In the Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), Appellants allege the
Board erred by misapprehending the term “data structure”, as recited in
claims 1,14, and 19, and as argued in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief.
Req. Reh’g 2. Appellants reiterate that Meyer’s disclosure of linking
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
metadata with an audio signal (e.g. MP3 file) is not analogous to the
metadata extending the data structure of the audio signal, as recited in claim
1. Id. (citing App. Br. 13, 14). In particular, Appellants allege that “the
Board indicated that MP3 files correspond to a defined data structure,
without rebutting the evidence.. .that one of ordinary skill would not
interpret an MP3 file as a data structure.” Id. at 3 (citing Reply Br. 2).
According to Appellants, MP3 is a file name extension for MPEG Audio
Layer 3, which is an audio coding format for audio data, as opposed to data
structure denoting organizing information in memory. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive. Meyer’s disclosure of the MP3
file teaches data structure because the MP3 file denotes data organized in
memory for the purpose of reproducing the particular data sequence as an
audio file (sound)1. Meyer 128. Therefore, Meyer’s MP3 file comports
with the data structure definition proffered by Appellants. Consequently, we
discern no error in our finding that Meyer’s disclosure of linking metadata to
the MP3 file teaches extending the data structure by linking it with
associated metadata. Dec. 5.
1 See R. Finlayson, “A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3
Audio,” Network working Group, RFC 5219 (February 2008),
https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc5219.pdf. See also Microsoft Computer
Dictionary 145 (5th ed 2002) defining “data structure” as “[a]n
organizational scheme, such as a record or array, that can be applied to data
to facilitate interpreting the data or performing operations on it.”
2
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
DECISION
THEREFORE, we have granted Appellants’ Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision, but have DENIED it with
respect to making any changes to the Decision.
DENIED
3