Brian Riggs et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 15, 2021

2020004125 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

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.
13/855,210 04/02/2013 Brian Riggs 058083-0870030 (B489C1) 7524
72058 7590 11/15/2021
Adobe / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN RIGGS,
VIJAY S. GHASKADVI, and JOEL HUFF
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 15–26, which are
all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 2, 3, 8,
9, 14, and 15. See Appeal Br. 14 et seq. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claimed subject matter is directed to Media Player Feedback. See
Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed
invention relate to:
[A] media player that initiates playback of content (e.g., play
back of a movie in a web browser). Based on input from a
respective user, the media player receives selections of
playback commands (e.g., play, pause, stop, rewind, fast
forward, etc.) applied to the content being played back by the
media player. Based on the selections, the media player creates
a log report. The log report records the selections of the
playback commands applied to the content and indicates, for
example, a corresponding time when the playback commands
were applied. According to one configuration, the media player
initiates distribution of the log report to notify a publisher
associated with the content which playback commands were
selected during playback of the content on the media player.
Spec. 29 (Abstr.).

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Dec. 2, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 14, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 19, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed May 3, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Apr. 2, 2013) (claiming benefit of US 11/841,232, filed Aug. 20, 2007, now
issued as USP 8,429,516).
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

3
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis, labeling, and formatting added to contested prior-art
limitations):
1. A method for identifying portions of content
played on media players without revealing the identities of such
media players, the method comprising:
receiving, at a server device, a first log report from a first
media player, wherein the first log report comprises (i) a first
content identifier that identifies a first item of content, the first
item of content played by the first media player, (ii) a first
unique value that indicates a combination of the first media
player and a publisher of the first item of content but does not
indicate an identity of the first media player, and (iii) a first
playback event associated with the first item of content;
receiving, at the server device, a second log report from a
second media player, wherein the second log report comprises
(i) a second content identifier that identifies a second item of
content, the second item of content played by the second media
player, (ii) a second unique value that indicates a combination
of the second media player and a publisher of a second item of
content, but does not indicate an identity of the second media
player, and (iii) a second playback event associated with the
second item of content;
storing, by the server device, the first log report and the
second log report in a database;
receiving, at the server device from a media publishing
device, a query to search the database for playback information
relating to content from a particular publisher;
servicing, by the server device, the query by:
retrieving, the first and second log reports from
the database,
[(a)] identifying, from the first and second log
reports, that the first item of content and the second item
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

4
of content are associated with the particular publisher
by
[(b)] matching the first unique value to a first
publisher identifier, matching the second unique value
to a second publisher identifier, and determining that
the first publisher identifier and the second publisher
identifier are identical, and
generating a response indicating that the first item
of content and the second item of content were viewed
by different media players, but does not identify the
different media players; and
responsive to providing the first and second log reports to
the media publishing device, receiving, at the server device,
from the media publishing device, an additional item of content
playable by the first and second media players and making the
additional item of content available to the first and second
media players.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Ramaley et al. (“Ramaley”) US 2002/0138619 A1 Sept. 26, 2002
Malik3 US 2007/0067241 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Wagner et al. (“Wagner”) US 2007/0092204 A1 Apr. 26, 2007
Bucher et al. (“Bucher”) US 2007/0283008 A1 Dec. 6, 2007
Hartwig et al. (“Hartwig”) US 2009/0024923 A1 Jan. 22, 2009

3 The Malik ‘241 reference is referred to by the Examiner as the “Dale”
reference. See Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

5
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, 16–18, and 20–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bucher,
Hartwig, and Ramaley. Final Act. 2.4
R2. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bucher, Hartwig, and Wagner. Final
Act. 11.5
R3. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bucher, Hartwig, and Malik. Final
Act. 13.6
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect
to independent claims 1, 7, and 13 for the specific reasons discussed below.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1
for emphasis as follows.

4 The Examiner erroneously includes canceled claim 3 in the explicit
statement of the rejection (Final Act. 2), and omits claim 20 from the
statement of the rejection while addressing claim 20 in the detailed rejection.
Compare Final Act. 2 with Final Act. 8.
5 The Examiner omits the Ramaley reference cited in Rejection R1 of
claim 1 from Rejection R2 of claim 19 that depends from claim 1.
6 The Examiner omits the Ramaley reference cited in Rejection R1 of
claim 1 from Rejection R3 of claim 26 that depends from claim 1.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers to the Malik reference as “Dale.” Final
Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

6
1. § 103(a) Rejection R1 of Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10–13, 16–18, 20–25
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 2–8) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Bucher, Hartwig, and Ramaley is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] method for identifying portions of content played on media
players without revealing the identities of such media players” that includes,
inter alia, the step of (a) “identifying, from the first and second log reports,
that the first item of content and the second item of content are associated
with the particular publisher by” (b) “matching the first unique value to a
first publisher identifier, matching the second unique value to a second
publisher identifier and determining that the first publisher identifier and the
second publisher identifier are identical,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added)?
Principles of Law
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

7
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Analysis
The Examiner finds the combination of Bucher and Ramaley teaches
or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4, 6 (citing
Bucher ¶¶ 34–36, Ramaley ¶ 23). In particular, with respect to recitation (a)
of “identifying . . . that the first item of content and the second item of
content are associated with the particular publisher” recited in claim 1, the
Examiner finds “Bucher teaches servicing the query by retrieving multiple
log reports to determine popular content by a publisher. Popular content is
analyzed by checking playback from multiple reports.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Bucher ¶¶ 34–36).
Appellant argues “while Bucher discloses that a ‘content provider
sends a list of possible media choices (e.g., song choices) to a plurality of
media devices,’ . . . Bucher fails to disclose determining that two items of
content that are not previously identified as originating from the same
provider are from the same provider using the claimed unique identifier.”
Appeal Br. 7–8.
We have reviewed the disclosure of Bucher, including the portion
cited by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, and we find no teaching or
suggestion that Bucher makes any determination regarding the publisher of
either of the first or second items of content. Instead, consistent with
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

8
Appellant’s argument, Bucher teaches “a ratings service 158 that collects the
data from one or more media devices 102” that is “anonymized at time of
collection to disallow the ability to map listening behavior to a particular
device.” Bucher ¶ 34 (italics added). In addition:
[A] device’s usage data is mapped algorithmically to a new,
unique device identifier so that the usage dataset cannot, by
itself, be used to map listening behavior to an identifiable
device, but all usage by a particular device can still be tracked
and analyzed. In one embodiment, the data is collected,
anonymized, aggregated, and/or analyzed to determine usage
patterns on a real-time basis or historical basis. User data can
then be used to determine popularity of certain audio content,
popular times of day for user use, and whether these results are
affected by the particular bandwidth available.
Id. (emphasis added).
In the Answer, the Examiner turns to Bucher in paragraph 9 to find
that Bucher teaches “enabling the logging of usage activity on a media
device of a user, media content from a variety of sources (publishers) and
transmitting the usage activity to a service/third party.” Ans. 3. We note
Bucher in paragraph 9 discloses:
The present invention overcomes the above and other
problems by enabling the logging of usage activity on a media
device of a user. Initially, a media device accesses media
content from any of a variety of sources, including local
memory and content providers in a network. A usage activity is
performed on the media content, which can include selecting
the media content for play, selecting media content for storage
in local memory, and sharing the media content with others. A
logging service logs the usage activity and after detecting a
network connection, transmits the usage activity via the
network connection to a ratings service.
Bucher ¶ 9.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

9
Again, while Bucher arguably teaches logging of usage activity on a
device basis, we see no teaching or even a suggestion that Bucher discloses
limitation (a) of “identifying . . . that the first item of content and the second
item of content are associated with the particular publisher,” as recited in
claim 1.
The Examiner finds Ramaley teaches or suggests limitation (b), i.e.,
“matching the first unique value to a first publisher identifier, matching the
second unique value to a second publisher identifier and determining that the
first publisher identifier and the second publisher identifier are identical,” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Ramaley ¶ 23). The portion of
Ramaley cited by the Examiner discloses, “FIG. 9C is an illustrative
example of a physical Media Table in accordance with one aspect of the
present invention.” Ramaley ¶ 23. Figure 9C of Ramaley is replicated
below:

“FIG. 9C represents a physical Media Table. As described below,
each database table is configured to associate the received physical media
files related to a Media and Release database entity created by a user.”
Ramaley ¶ 61.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

10
In response to the Examiner’s finding regarding limitation (b),
Appellant argues:
Ramaley’s FIG. 9C includes a “physical media table.”
But this physical media table or any entries within the physical
media table do not disclose the claimed feature “matching the
first unique value to a first publisher identifier, matching the
second unique value to a second publisher identifier, and
determining that the first publisher identifier and the second
publisher identifier are identical” as required by the claims. For
example, Ramaley’s “media ID” is a “database identifier
[generated] for each new Media created on the managing
server.” Therefore, this “media ID” appears to be merely a
database identifier. But even assuming the “media ID” conveys
information about a particular player, which Ramaley does not
suggest, the “media ID” still fails to convey any combination of
publisher and media player as required by the claims.
Therefore, Ramaley’s “media ID” at best identifies that a
particular content item matches a content item in a database
(e.g., the “physical media table”) but not that two particular
content items are “associated with [a] particular publisher.”
Appeal Br. 9–10 (footnote omitted).
In the Answer, the Examiner for the first time in connection with
claim 1 cites paragraph 27 of Ramaley as teaching “matching the unique
value with a first publisher identifier and matching the second unique value
to a second publisher identifier and determining that the publisher identifiers
are the same,” Ans. 5.
Appellant responds, “the combination of references lacks any
disclosure of content identifiers that can identify respective content and
facilitate an identification of a common publisher across different media
players.” Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

11
Paragraph 27 of Ramaley discloses:
According to one illustrative example, a publisher or
media owner may publish one media file by uploading the
media file to a managing server. Upon receipt of the media file,
the managing server automatically stores the media file. In one
method, the server may distribute the received media file to a
plurality of remote computing devices depending on the
multimedia service requested by the user. This automated
distribution process allows a user to utilize a number of service
providers without the need to produce, distribute and track a
plurality of media files for each media. The system is
configured to allow the content provider to monitor and control
the distribution of the media by the use of a single graphical
user interface. In addition, the system of the present invention
allows users of client computers to readily access, receive and
view the published media via a centralized server.
Ramaley ¶ 27.
“The cited paragraph, at best, merely describes assigning of a user ID
to content. This disclosure of a user ID that is assigned to content is silent
on a publisher of content or the media player, and therefore fails to teach
indicating ‘a combination of the . . . media player and a publisher’ while
‘not indicat[ing] an identity of the . . . media player," as required for the
claimed ‘unique value.’” Reply Br. 5.
After a detailed review of the cited references, the Examiner’s
findings, and Appellant’s arguments, we agree with Appellant that the cited
prior art combination also does not teach or suggest disputed limitation (b)
of claim 1.7

7 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

12
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at
least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination
to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, such that we find
error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claims 7 and 13 which recite subject
matter of commensurate scope. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
Rejection R1 of claims 4–6, 10–12, 16–18, and 20–25 that depend from
independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
2. Rejections R2 and R3 of Claims 19 and 26
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claim 1, supra,
we also reverse obviousness Rejections R2 and R3 under § 103(a) of claims
19 and 26 that depend from claim 1. On this record, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited Wagner and Malik references overcome
the aforementioned deficiencies with Bucher, Hartwig, and Ramaley, as
discussed above regarding claim 1.

(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a
single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2020-004125
Application 13/855,210

13
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.8 More specifically,
Appellant has persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to
obviousness Rejections R1 through R3 of claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and
we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 10–
13, 16–18,
20–25
103(a)
Bucher,
Hartwig,
Ramaley

1, 4–7, 10–
13, 16–18,
20–25
19 103(a)
Bucher,
Hartwig,
Wagner9
19
26 103(a)
Bucher,
Hartwig,
Malik10
26
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–7, 10–
13, 16–26
REVERSED

8 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the
Examiner to consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the Board
is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference
should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §1213.02.
9 See n.5, supra.
10 See n.6, supra.