Ex Parte Abajian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2018

14670561 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2018)

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.
14/670,561 03/27/2015 Aram Christian Abajian 337335-US-CNT[7] 3607
121445 7590
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
EXAMINER
VY, HUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARAM CHRISTIAN ABAJIAN,
ROBIN ANDREW ALEXANDER,
SCOTT CHAO-CHUEH LEE, AUSTIN DAVID DAHL,
JOHN ANTHONY DEROSA, CHARLES A. PORTER,
ERIC CARL REHM, JENNIFER LYNN KOLAR, and
SRINIVASAN SUDANAGUNTA
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6—21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—5 were canceled previously.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention relates to an “automated
media search tool that provides information to a user.” Spec. 1 8. More
specifically, the “invention is a system and method for retrieving media files
and data related to media files on a computer network via a search system
utilizing metadata.” Id. 123. Media files include “audio, video, textual,
multimedia data files, and streaming media files” and metadata “means ‘data
about data’” (i.e., metadata “comprises information that describes the
contents or attributes of other data (e.g., media file)”). Id. ]Hf 23, 25.
The claims are directed to systems and methods for enhancing
metadata obtained from media files. The claims obtain metadata from a
media file and modify the metadata in order to generate enhanced metadata.
See Spec. Tflf 30-32. In particular, some of the claims recite adding content
to the obtained metadata in response to identifying that the obtained
metadata is missing and other claims recite replacing content in the obtained
metadata in response to identifying non-matching content in the obtained
metadata. See id. 132 (describing adding missing metadata and correcting
incorrect metadata). Claims 6, 11, 16, and 21 are independent claims.
Claims 11 and 21 are exemplary and reproduced below:
11. A method of enhancing metadata, the method comprising:
identifying, in a ground truth database, valid metadata that
at least partially matches the obtained metadata; and
modifying the obtained metadata using at least a portion
of the valid metadata so as to generate enhanced metadata by:
comparing contents in the obtained metadata with
corresponding contents in the valid metadata,
identifying contents in the valid metadata that are
not in the obtained metadata, and
2
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
adding the identified contents in the valid metadata
to the obtained metadata.
21. A device for enhancing metadata, the device comprising:
a metadata obtainer that obtains metadata of a file that
includes media;
a digital storage that stores processing instructions; and
one or more hardware processors that execute the
processing instructions so as to provide functions of an extractor
that:
identifies, in a ground truth database, valid metadata
that at least partially matches the obtained metadata; and
enhances the obtained metadata using at least a
portion of the valid metadata so as to generate enhanced
metadata, by
comparing contents in the obtained metadata with
corresponding contents in the valid metadata,
identifying contents in the valid metadata that do
not match contents in the obtained metadata, and
replacing the non-matching contents in the obtained
metadata with the identified contents in the valid metadata.
REJECTIONS
Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21 (the “anticipated
claims”) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kanai
(US 7,072,983 Bl; July 4, 2006). Final Act. 5-8, 10.
Claims 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Kanai and Mourad (US 2003/0135464 Al; July 17,
2003). Final Act. 7-8, 10.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Kanai and Bannon (US 6,963,863 Bl; Nov. 8, 2005).
Final Act. 8—10.
3
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Appellants presented no particular arguments against the obviousness
rejections of claims 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20. Appellants addressed claims
6, 7, 9,11,12,14,16,17,19 only with respect to arguments applicable to all
of the anticipated claims (including claim 21). See App. Br. 10—11, 13—15;
Reply Br. 2—3, 5—6. Therefore, we select claim 11 as representative with
respect to arguments applicable to the anticipated claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). Appellants contend the scope of claim 21 is
different than that of claims 1 and 11, and Appellants argue additional
aspects of claim 21 separately. See App. Br. 4—5, 7, 11; Reply Br. 4. First,
we will address the arguments addressed to all of the anticipated claims. We
then address the additional arguments specific to claim 21. Arguments
which Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed waived.
Anticipation Legal Standard
Appellants argue the Examiner applied the incorrect legal standard in
the anticipation rejection. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically,
Appellants contend the Examiner made findings with respect to what Kanai
discloses, which Appellants assert “is the correct legal standard/inquiry only
for rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103,” rather than what Kanai teaches,
which Appellants assert is “the correct legal standard/inquiry for any
anticipation rejection.” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue the distinction is not
simply a semantics issue because Appellants must speculate which features
4
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
are merely suggested by Kanai, providing Appellants insufficient basis to
respond to the rejection. Id. at 9; Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner clearly states that the rejection of the anticipated claims
is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Final Act. 5 (“Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected
under 35 U. S. C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Kanai” (emphasis
added)); Ans. 2 (stating the same), 7 (“the rejection is under 102 (e)”). The
Examiner does not base any findings on what Kanai “suggests” or indicate
any modification or combination is necessary, but rather maps each
limitation to particular disclosures in Kanai. Final Act. 5—7, 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. First, the Federal
Circuit often describes anticipation as a question of whether a reference
discloses all elements arranged as in the claim. See, e.g., Net MoneyIN, Inc.
v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Finally,
Appellants’ assertion that they are left to speculate whether certain features
are merely suggested is unavailing because, as stated above, the Examiner
never states that any particular limitations are only suggested by Kanai. The
Examiner clearly states the rejection as an anticipation rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and thus, the Examiner provides sufficient detail to
permit Appellants to respond meaningfully. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Final Act. 5—6 (citing Kanai 6:50-67, 7:43—63,
9:50-60, 12:65—13:20, 13:25—40, Figs. 4—6). For the foregoing reasons,
Appellants have not apprised us of error.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 6,7,9,11,12,14,16,17,19
The Examiner finds Kanai discloses every element of claim 11. Final
Act. 2—3, 5—6, 10; Ans. 2-4, 7—9. The Examiner finds Kanai’s meta-data
5
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
extraction unit 402 when extracting metadata (obtaining metadata) from an
image/jpeg or a video/x-msvod (file that includes media) discloses the
obtaining metadata step. Ans. 9.
Appellants contend Kanai fails to disclose the obtaining metadata
step. App. Br. 11—12. In particular, Appellants assert Kanai’s electronic
program guide (EPG) does not include media because Kanai “only teaches
that the EPG includes ‘information regarding a program,’” and, furthermore,
the information obtained from Kanai’s EPG and subsequently registered
“cannot reasonably be characterized as metadata or there would be no need
to subsequently register that obtained information as metadata” (i.e., Kanai
generates metadata after obtaining information from the EPG). App. Br. 12;
see also Reply Br. 6 (“//'the data or file sent to the Kanai et al. meta-data
extraction unit 402 included metadata, then the metadata generation function
of that unit would be redundant”). Appellants further contend that Kanai’s
“meta-data extraction unit 402 of FIG. 13 generates metadata” and, thus, the
“delivered data or file does not include the metadata.” Reply Br. 6.
Kanai is directed to systematically registering metadata of various
types of data in order to permit searching for and retrieving those items by
specifying values of the metadata. Kanai 2:21—25, 3:53—57. Kanai further
discloses a metadata generation procedure specific to a particular type of
media for which the metadata is being generated. Id. at 7:44—52. Kanai
discloses exemplary media types for which the system has metadata
generating procedures, including word processing documents, images (e.g.,
JPEG or TIFF), video (e.g., AVI or QuickTime). Id. at 8:57—9:41.
Kanai discloses that EXIF is a standard format for digital camera
images that includes information including the camera model used, the date
6
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
and time the picture was taken, a title, shutter speed, aperture, lens focal
length, and location. Id. at 9:5—13. Kanai’s “meta-data generation
procedure [for images] checks whether or not the EXIF information region is
contained in a file of the JPEG or TIFF format, and extracts the EXIF
information as the meta-data if the EXIG information region is contained.”
Id. at 9:15—20 (emphasis added). Similarly, Kanai’s metadata generation
procedure for video file types “extracts the various DV [(digital video)] data
as the meta-data.” Id. at 9:24-41 (emphasis added). Kanai also discloses
adding metadata to the metadata extracted from Kanai’s registering data
(i.e., media file) such as, for example, information regarding a program from
an electronic program guide based on data in the media file. Id. at 9:50-55
(explaining that the system may “acquire information regarding the program
from an electronic program guide (EPG) according to information on the
recording time and the broadcast channel contained within the data, and
register information on the program title, the cast, etc., that is contained in
the acquired information as the meta-data”).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kanai does not
disclose “obtaining] metadata from a file that includes media” because
Kanai discloses generating metadata for files such as images and videos and,
moreover, Kanai explicitly and repeatedly discloses that its metadata
generation procedures extract data from the files it receives, as set forth
above. Additionally, Kanai even identifies the unit responsible for
“generating” the metadata as a “meta-data extraction unit 402.” See e.g.,
Kanai 14:16—24. Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that Kanai would not
need to generate or register metadata if the media file included metadata to
be extracted is not persuasive because it disregards Kanai’s explanation of
7
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
the process. First, as discussed above, Kanai’s metadata “generation” may
include extracting metadata from the file. Additionally, Kanai is registering
the extracted metadata to simplify the accessibility of the data. Thus, it is
not inconsistent to “generate” and “register” the metadata just because it
already existed in the media file. On the contrary, if the media file did not
include metadata, there would be no metadata for Kanai’s procedures to
generate and register.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 as anticipated by
Kanai.
Claim 21
Appellants argue Kanai fails to anticipate claim 21 for the same
reason discussed above with respect to claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and
19—i.e., because Kanai does not disclose the obtaining step. In addition,
claim 21 differs in scope from independent claims 6, 11, and 16 because
claim 21 recites identifying and “replacing the non-matching contents in the
obtained metadata” rather than identifying and “adding contents . . . that are
not in the obtained metadata,” as recited in claims 6, 11, and 16.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding Kanai discloses the obtaining step. With respect to claim
21’s limitations that differ from those of the other independent claims, the
Examiner finds Kanai updates metadata of a directory when data or a child
directory contained in the directory is added or removed, which the
Examiner finds discloses the recited “replacing the non-matching contents in
the obtained metadata with the identified contents in the valid metadata.”
Final Act. 2—3 (citing Kanai 12:22—35); Ans. 8 (citing Kanai 13:1—20).
8
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
Appellants argue the cited portions of Kanai relate to updating the
metadata of a directory, whereas the claims recite replacing non-matching
contents of obtained metadata, not metadata of a directory. App. Br. 14.
We agree with Appellants. When reviewing the claim as a whole, we
note that the first step of claim 21 recites “obtaining] metadata of a file that
includes media.” Thus, the “obtained metadata” referred to in the replacing
step is the metadata obtained from a file that includes media. The
Examiner’s rejection finds Kanai’s process of updating directory metadata
discloses the recited replacing step (i.e., “replacing the non-matching
contents in the obtained metadata”). See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 8. However,
the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Kanai’s directory metadata
is metadata obtained from a file that includes media.
For the above reasons, and constrained by this record, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kanai. Because this issue is dispositive
with respect to claim 21, we need not and do not address Appellants’ other
arguments with respect to claim 21.
Claims 8,10,13,15,18, and 20
Appellants do not separately argue the obviousness rejection of claims
8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 with particularity. See generally App. Br. 8—15.
Accordingly, because Appellants present no separate argument and for the
same reasons as discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 as obvious in view of Kanai in
combination with either Mourad or Bannon.
9
Appeal 2017-010803
Application 14/670,561
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6—20, but we
reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10