Ex Parte Raichelgauz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14050991 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/050,991 10/10/2013 Igal Raichelgauz
122066 7590 03/28/2018
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
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.
CORTP0200 7327
EXAMINER
CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
pair@mb-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IGAL RAICHELGAUZ, KARINA ODINAEV,
YEHOSHUA Y. ZEEVI, and CORTICA, LTD 1
Appeal2017-008535
Application 14/050,991
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20. Claims 5 and
15 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 6. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cortica, Ltd. App. Br.
3.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Oct. 10, 2013
(claiming benefit of numerous applications including PCT /IL2006/00123 5
filed Oct. 26, 2006 cwhich claims the benefit of Israel Patent Application
Nos. 173409 (filed Jan. 29, 2006) and 171577 (filed Oct. 26, 2005)));
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed Feb. 6, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.")
Appeal2017-008535
Application 14/050,991
We reverse.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns analysis of
multimedia content and, more particularly, systems and methods for tagging
multimedia content elements. The multimedia content element tagging
process receives one or more multimedia content elements from a user
device, generates a corresponding signature for the multimedia content
element( s ), and generates a tag based on (1) the generated signature and (2)
a concept structure. The tag is text data describing the multimedia content
element, which is searchable by the user device. The concept structure is a
collection of signatures representing different multimedia content elements
and metadata describing the concept structure. The multimedia content
element tagging process then sends the generated tag to a storage location on
the user device. (Spec. i-fi-12, 8; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for tagging multimedia content elements,
compnsmg:
receiving at least one multimedia content element from a
user device;
generating at least one signature for the at least one
multimedia content element;
filed May 22, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action
(Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Sept. 9, 2016; and Answer ("Ans.")
mailed Mar. 23, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-008535
Application 14/050,991
generating at least one tag based on the at least one
generated signature and at least one concept structure, wherein
the at least one concept structure is a collection of signatures
representing different multimedia content elements and metadata
describing the concept structure, wherein the at least one tag is a
textual term assigned to the at least one multimedia content
element and is searchable by the user device; and
sending the generated at least one tag to a storage on the
user device.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (US 2008/0313140 Al,
published Dec. 18, 2008 (filed June 18, 2008, claiming benefit of US
60/944,668 filed on June 18, 2007)) ("Pereira") and Smith et al. (US
2002/0087530 Al, published July 4, 2002) ("Smith"). 3
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pereira and
Smith would have collectively taught or suggested "generating at least one
tag based on the at least one generated signature and at least one concept
3 Pereira claims benefit dating back to June 18, 2007. The instant
application claims benefit dating back to October 26, 2005 through a series
of provisional applications, continuation applications, and continuation-in-
part applications. Appellants have not presented evidence that the instant
application pre-dates Pereira. We decline to undertake, sua sponte, such an
analysis. Accordingly, Pereira is valid prior art for the purposes of the
present Appeal.
3
Appeal2017-008535
Application 14/050,991
structure" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 10 and dependent claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20) as being
obvious in view of Pereira and Smith. See Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 2-11.
Appellants contend that Pereira and Smith do not teach the disputed features
of claim 1. See App. Br. 6-14; Reply Br. 3-14. Specifically, Appellants
contend, inter alia, that Pereira and Smith do not teach generating a tag
based on a generated signature where the generated signature is generated
from a received multimedia content element. In other words, that the tag is
generated based on a signature generated after a multimedia content element
is created. See App. Br. 7-9. The Examiner relies on Smith to teach the tag
generation. See Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 2---6 (citing Smith, Abstract; i-fi-137, 51;
Figs. 1, 4A--4B). Appellants contend, and we agree, that:
Smith explicitly teaches that the descriptive information is
added during the creation of the multimedia document and not
added after creation of the multimedia document. Thus, at best,
Smith teaches generating tags during creation of at least one
multimedia content element. The claimed features require
generating tags based on signatures for a received multimedia
content element.
App. Br. 7. The Examiner, on the other hand, misconstrues claim 1
maintaining that "claim 1 do[ es] not specify whether descriptive information
is added during the creation" of the multimedia element (document) or after
its creation and, therefore, Smith teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 4;
see Ans. 2-7. As explained by Appellants (supra), claim 1 requires the tag
4
Appeal2017-008535
Application 14/050,991
being generated from a signature that is generated from a received
multimedia element. The tag and signature must be created after the
multimedia element is created and after the multimedia element is received.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain how Smith in combination with Pereira teaches or suggests
"generating at least one tag based on the at least one generated signature and
at least one concept structure" (claim 1, emphasis added). Consequently, we
are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Pereira and Smith renders obvious
Appellants' claim 1. Independent claim 10 includes limitations of
commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20
depend from and stand with claims 1 and 10, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-
14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20.
REVERSED
5