Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13602012 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/602,012 08/31/2012 Beth Anderson ADBLE.020P4 2210
79502 7590 12/30/2016
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
(SEAZN) (AMAZON)
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
S E AZN. Admin @ knobbe .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BETH ANDERSON, AJAY ARORA, and GUY A. STORY JR.
Appeal 2016-001189
Application 13/602,012
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—16, and 19-25, which are
all the claims pending in the present patent application.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Audible, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., as the real parties
in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 7, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. App. Br. 37, 39.
Appeal 2016-001189
Application 13/602,012
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to managing decoupled companion
content so that it can be synchronized and played back simultaneously or
interchangeably by a user computing device or devices. Spec. 124.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for
providing synchronized content, the computer-
implemented method comprising:
under control of one or more computing devices
configured with specific executable instructions,
identifying a first content accessed by a user;
identifying a second content that is a
companion to the first content, wherein the second
content has not yet been accessed by the user, and
wherein the first content and the second content can
be synchronized;
generating synchronization information that
maps content within the first content to
corresponding portions of the second content,
wherein the synchronization information indicates
at least one disparity in substance between the first
content and second content;
generating a sample of the second content for
synchronous presentation to the user with the first
content on a user computing device, wherein the
sample of the second content is selected based at
least in part on the synchronization information;
determining at least a portion of the
synchronization information that corresponds to the
sample of the second content, wherein the
determined at least a portion of the synchronization
information enables the user computing device to
2
Appeal 2016-001189
Application 13/602,012
synchronously present the first content with the
sample of the second content; and
transmitting the sample of the second content
and the determined at least a portion of the
synchronization information to the user computing
device, wherein the sample of the second content
comprises a portion of the second content that is less
than the entirety of the second content.
The Rejections
Claims 1—6, 8—10, 15, 16, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Locker et al. (US 2011/0231474 Al; Sept. 22, 2011), Schilit et
al. (US 6,356,922 Bl; Mar. 12, 2002), and Linden (US 6,912,505 B2; June
28, 2005).
Claims 11—14 and 22—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Locker, Schilit, Linden, and Yuen (US 2002/0007349 Al; Jan. 17, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 6, and 15 recites, in relevant part,
“synchronization information . . . wherein the synchronization information
indicates at least one disparity in substance” between a first and second
content. The Examiner rejects each independent claim relying on Linden as
meeting the claimed content synchronization information. Final Act. 4, 5, 7.
The Examiner elaborates:
Linden teaches that “collaborative filtering” (See
Linden, Col. [] 1, [i]n 50-70) is [the] equivalent act
of synchronization (i.e. [,] representing items to
indicate coexistence) of two content items with a
disparity. Two user profiles (i.e. content items
including a list of user’s favorite items) are
3
Appeal 2016-001189
Application 13/602,012
compared to find similar users by mapping (i.e. [,]
delineating) matching items on the two lists, and
resulting in synchronized information (i.e. [,]
representing items that both [users] rated highly)
that notes at least one disparity between the users
(i.e.[,] items that one but not the other user has not
rated, is recommended). Put simply, Linden teaches
that two users lists as arranged are mapped as
closely as possible by their coincidences (i.e. [,]
synchronized), and disparity information between
the two lists (i.e. [,] the content) is used to
recommend new items between the users.
Ans. 3. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the
Examiner’s findings do not meet the plain claim language. App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants. We apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where, as here, the
Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be given its
ordinary meaning. In reZletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The
Examiner offers no support for the finding that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of synchronization information encompasses “representing
items to indicate coexistence.” Ans. 2—3. We additionally observe that a
relevant technical dictionary defines “synchronization” in pertinent part as:
3. In a computer, the matching of timing between
components of the computer so that all are
coordinated. For instance, operations performed by
the operating system are generally synchronized
with the signals of the machine’s internal clock. See
also clock (definition 1), operating system. 4. In
application or database files, version comparisons
of copies of the files to ensure they contain the same
4
Appeal 2016-001189
Application 13/602,012
data. 5. In multimedia, precise real-time processing.
Audio and video are transmitted over a network in
synchronization so that they can be played back
together without delayed responses.
Microsoft Computer Dictionary 506 (5th ed. 2002). Thus, on the record
before us, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Linden’s “content-based” comparison of various users’ favorite
web pages or Linden’s collaborative filtering—which makes
recommendations “without any analysis of item content” (Linden, 1:54)—as
teaching or suggesting the claimed content synchronization information
indicating a disparity between a first and second content.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, and 15, nor the rejection of their dependent claims
2-5, 8-14, 16, and 19-25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—6, 8—16, and
19-25.
REVERSED
5