Ex Parte Bennett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12482624 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
12/482,624 06/11/2009 James D. Bennett CWR002 7529
34399 7590 03/01/2017
GARLICK & MARKISON
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
MMurdock@ TEX ASPATENTS .COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES D. BENNETT
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
41—60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns creative work protection.
Spec. 1:8—9. Claim 41 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
41. A creative works system supporting creative works rights
associated with a first plurality of creative video works of a
plurality of creative video works owners, the creative video
works system comprising:
a processing infrastructure configured to provide an
upload service that manages receipt of data uploads from a
plurality of creative works owners, the data uploads initiated by
the plurality of creative works owners and corresponding to a
first plurality of creative video works;
an interface through which the processing infrastructure
acquires web content including a second plurality of creative
video works from a host server, and directs a comparison process
to identify a first match between a first of the first plurality of
creative video works and a first of the second plurality of creative
video works, the first of the first plurality of creative video works
being owned by a first of the plurality of creative works owners;
wherein the comparison process comprises:
performing a first comparison of digital signatures of the
first of the first plurality of creative video works and a first of the
second plurality of creative video works;
performing a second comparison of individual frames
included in the first of the first plurality of creative video works
and the first of the second plurality of creative video works;
converting the first of the first plurality of creative video
works from a first native file format to a predetermined video file
format for comparison;
converting the first of the second plurality of creative
video works from a second native file format to the
predetermined video file format for comparison;
comparing the first of the first plurality and the first of the
second plurality in the predetermined video file format;
2
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
the processing infrastructure further configured to deliver
information indicating results of the comparison process for
presentation to the first of the plurality of creative video works
owners.
REJECTIONS
Claims 55—60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 12 as being
indefinite.
Claims 41, 42, and 44—53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brock et al. (US 2008/0059461 Al; Mar. 6, 2008), Yagnik
et al. (US 8,094,872 Bl; Jan. 10, 2012), and Berry et al. (US 2009/0092375
Al; Apr. 9, 2009).
Claims 55, 56, and 58—60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brock, Yagnik, Shear et al. (US 2006/0206397 Al; Sept.
14, 2006), and Mysen et al. (US 2008/0288509 Al; Nov. 20, 2008).
Claims 43 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brock, Yagnik, Barry, and Ishikawa et al. (US
2009/0037975 Al; Feb. 5, 2009).
Claim 57 stands rejected stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brock, Yagnik, Shear, Mysen, and Ishikawa.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection
of claims 55—60. See App. Br. 9-14. We therefore summarily sustain this
rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
Obviousness Rejections
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Brock, Yagnik,
and Berry fails to teach or suggest the following limitations recited in claim
41:
performing a first comparison of digital signatures of the
first of the first plurality of creative video works and a first of the
second plurality of creative video works;
performing a second comparison of individual frames
included in the first of the first plurality of creative video works
and the first of the second plurality of creative video works
See App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 1—2. According to Appellant, each of the
cited “references discloses only a single comparison” and none “teach or
suggest the two step comparison” recited in claim 41. App. Br. 12.
Appellant contends “[t]he combination of these references is merely a
hindsight reconstruction. Further, each of these references teaches away
from the two step comparison.” Id.
The Examiner found a combination of Brock, Yagnik, and Berry
teaches or suggests the disputed subject matter. See Final Act. 3—8.
Appellant’s arguments against Brock, Yagnik, and Berry individually have
not persuaded us the Examiner erred, as “one cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). Appellant’s conclusory assertions that the Examiner engaged in
hindsight reconstruction and the prior art teaches away from the claimed
invention also have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Appellant has not
provided any persuasive evidence or reasoning to support the contention that
the Examiner engaged in hindsight construction. See App. Br. 12. And
Appellant’s contention that the references teach comparison of either
4
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
complete works or frames does not show “a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference[s], would be discouraged from following the path set
out in the reference[s], or would be led in a direction divergent from the path
that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Appellant also contend the Examiner’s combination of Brock, Yagnik,
Shear, and Mysen fails to teach or suggest the following limitations recited
in claim 55:
wherein the comparision process comprises:
converting a first of the first plurality of creative audio
works into an analog form for comparison;
converting a first of the second plurality of creative audio
works into an analog form for comparison;
comparing the first of the first plurality of creative audio
works and the first of the second plurality of creative audio works
in analog form to determine a first match.
See App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant argues neither Brock,
Yagnik, or Mysen teaches or suggests converting creative audio works to
analog for comparison. App. Br. 13. Regarding Shear, Appellant contends
that “[wjhile Shear discusses the aspects of analog and digital works it fails
to disclose conversion to an analog form and comparison in analog form
between differing creative works.” Id. Appellant also asserts that “[t]o
convert to an analog form comparison to the teachings of these references,
which teach away from the claim language.” Id.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. Here, too, the
Examiner concluded a combination of references—specifically, Brock,
Yagnik, Shear, and Mysen—teaches or suggests the disputed subject matter.
See Final Act. 17—22. Appellant’s conclusory arguments against the
5
Appeal 2016-007885
Application 12/482,624
individual references have not persuaded us the Examine erred. See Keller,
642 F.2d at 426. Appellant’s assertion that the cited references teach away
from the claimed invention lacks any persuasive supporting evidence or
reasoning; therefore, we also find this argument unpersuasive.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
41 and 55. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive
patentability arguments for claims 42—54 and 56—60, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 41—60.
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).
AFFIRMED
6