Ex Parte BOODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 201511837244 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/837,244 08/10/2007 John BOO 1398-189 (YPF200703-0018) 4641 66547 7590 04/17/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2659 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/17/2015 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 JOHN BOO ____________ Appeal 2013-002153 Application 11/837,244 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 13–26, all the claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 4, and 7–12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to a mobile terminal capable of playing multimedia files, wherein file information is provided as speech. Spec. 1:14–16. Appeal 2013-002153 Application 11/837,244 2 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A speech-based file guiding method for a mobile terminal, the method comprising: checking if a music play mode is activated; checking, if the music play mode is activated, whether a file selection signal is input; and outputting audio sounds corresponding to file information on a file selected according to the input file selection signal if a file selection signal is input, wherein the outputting of audio sounds includes finding a music file indicated by the input file selection signal, extracting metadata from the found music file, creating text information corresponding to the extracted metadata, and converting the text information into audio sounds. Appellant appeals the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 20, and 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Douthitt (US 2009/0326949 A1; Dec. 31, 2009); and R2. Claims 13–19, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Douthitt. Claim Groupings Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 20 as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012). Appeal 2013-002153 Application 11/837,244 3 ANALYSIS Rejection under §102(e) of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Douthitt discloses extracting metadata from the found music file, creating text information corresponding to the extracted metadata, and converting the text information into audio sounds, as set forth in claim 1? Appellant contends that Douthitt “merely converts text into an audio expression, without extracting metadata from the found music file, and creating text information corresponding to the extracted metadata . . . ” (App. Br. 6). We disagree with Appellant. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Douthitt discloses in paragraph 0036 that “the user speaks ‘play the Beatles’ (a selection signal) and the system finds the tracks (music files) associated with the Beatles” (Ans. 7; citing ¶ 36), and at paragraph 0043 Douthitt discloses that the “control module 102 will audibly list the meta data entries of each media file” (id.; citing ¶ 43), and “the extracted meta data entries have been parsed into various text portions that are eventually output to the user as audible speech” (id. at 8; citing ¶¶ 28, 33–34, 41). Douthitt further discloses “extracting meta data from a digital media storage device . . . . identifying a media file on the digital media storage device, and retrieving meta data from a media file” (see Abstract). In other words, Douthitt discloses that a file selection signal is input via the user’s spoken command and metadata of the available media file is Appeal 2013-002153 Application 11/837,244 4 provided to the user, either in text and/or by audible means. We find unavailing Appellant’s contention the Douthitt does not extract metadata from the found music file and creates text corresponding to the extracted metadata. For at these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Douthitt discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1, and in dependent claims 3, 5, and 6, not separately argued (App. Br. 6–7). Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Douthitt. Rejection under §102(e) of Claims 20 and 22–25 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Douthitt discloses parsing metadata of a music file and creating text file information corresponding to the parsed metadata, as set forth in claim 20? Appellant contends that, “comparing of the oral command with the acoustic baseform of the metadata by Douthitt fails to disclose creating text file information corresponding to the parsed metadata, converting the text file information on the music file into audio sounds, and sending the audio sounds to the headset, as recited in Claim 20” (App. Br. 7). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Douthitt discloses at paragraph 0028 “media cataloger 248 is configured to parse the media file to locate the embedded metadata (ID3 tags) and extract them . . . ” (Ans. 7; citing ¶ 28), and paragraph 0035 “specifically teaches converting text data . . . . into an acoustic baseform, with a text-to-speech engine” (id. at 8; citing ¶ 35). In other words, Douthitt clearly discloses parsing the media file to Appeal 2013-002153 Application 11/837,244 5 locate and extract the embedded metadata and using a text-to-speech engine to convert the meta data entries. Thus, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that Douthitt fails to disclose the argued limitation. For at these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Douthitt discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 20 and commensurately recited in independent claim 25, and dependent claims 22–24 not separately argued (App. Br. 7–8). Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20 and 22–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Douthitt. Rejection under §103(a) of Claims 13–19, 21, and 26 Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 20 above (see App. Br. 7–9), claims 13–19, 21, and 26 fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) and § 103(a) rejections R1and R2. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kme Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation