Ex Parte Story et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13070313 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/070,313 03/23/2011
79502 7590 06/30/2016
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guy A. Story JR.
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.
ADBLE.020A 1779
EXAMINER
RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
SEAZN.Admin@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY A. STORY JR, MUGUR F. TOLEA,
KEVIN S. LESTER, ALEXANDER GALKIN,
BRUCE N. ISRAEL, and RYAN J. SNODGRASS
Appeal2015-000936
Application 13/070,313
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-38, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Audible, Inc. and Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the
real parties in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000936
Application 13/070,313
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to managing decoupled companion
content so that it can be synchronized. Spec. i-f 15.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A system for providing
synchronization information, the
compnsmg:
content
system
a data store configured to store content
information and content synchronization
information;
one or more computer systems m
communication with the data store that are
configured to:
identifY a content match using the
content information in the data store by
determining that a degree to which text of a
first content and audio of a second content
correlate indicates that the text of the first
content can be synchronously presented with
the audio of the second content, wherein the
first content is decoupled from the second
content;
identify a device to receive the content
synchronization information in response to
identifying the content match, the content
synchronization information compnsmg
information regarding textual positions of the
text of the first content to synchronously
present with playback positions of the audio
the second content, the device storing the first
content and the second content, and the
device configured to present the first content
and the second content synchronously using
the content synchronization information; and
2
Appeal2015-000936
Application 13/070,313
cause transmission of the content
synchronization information from the data
store to the device via a network.
The Rejection
Claims 1-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locker et
al. (US 2011/02314 7 4 A 1; Sept. 22, 2011) and Moreno et al. (US 8, 131,545
Bl; Mar. 6, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
The Examiner rejects claim 1 and elaborates by finding, "Locker
identifies content from separate (i.e. decoupled) sources for an ebook (i.e. a
first content) and an audiobook (i.e. a second content) such that the ebook
and audiobook that match (i.e. correlate; e.g. under broadest reasonable
interpretation 1-100% is a level of correlation) may be presented (i.e.
audibly and visually) to the user." Ans. 2. Appellants contend, inter alia,
the Examiner errs because Locker does not teach or suggest identifying a
content match by determining a degree of correlation between the first and
second content. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants. We have reviewed the portions of Locker
cited by the Examiner. We cannot find therein adequate teaching or
suggestion of the claimed identification. The Examiner cites Locker's audio
and e-Books (i.e., first and second content) and asserts that because the two
are from the same source, there is a 100% match between them. Id. Even
assuming arguendo this is true, the cited portions of Locker nevertheless fail
3
Appeal2015-000936
Application 13/070,313
to teach or suggest actually performing the claimed step of identifying a
content match by determining a degree of correlation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-
38.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-38.
REVERSED
4