Ex Parte Cortes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13595918 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/595,918 08/27/2012
77970 7590 06/20/2016
Polsinelli -- Apple Inc.
c/o Polsinelli PC
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ricardo D. Cortes
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
8802.406.NPUSOO_pl2895US 1 5962
EXAMINER
YEN,SYLING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
Apple@Polsinelli.com
cadocket@Polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICARDO D. CORTES and MAX MULLER
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a management of
network-based digital data repository (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for identifying equivalent data items, the
method comprising:
receiving a partial digital fingerprint for a local data item,
the local digital data item being stored at a client device;
first comparing the partial digital fingerprint for the local
digital data item with a partial digital fingerprint for a plurality
of remote digital data items, the remote digital data items being
stored to a remote data repository associated with a remote
server device;
identifying a set of one or more of the remote digital data
items that match the local digital data item based on results of
the first comparing;
receiving a full digital fingerprint for the local data item;
second comparing the full digital fingerprint for the local
digital data item with a full digital fingerprint for the one or
more of the remote digital data items in the set of one or more
of the remote digital data items; and
identifying at least one of the set of one or more of the
remote digital data items that match the local digital data item
based on results of the second comparing.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wang et al. US 2011/0276157 Al Nov. 10, 2011
2
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
REJECTION
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wang (Final Act. 2-18).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1-19
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Wang (App. Br.
7-13). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wang discloses "first
comparing the partial digital fingerprint for the local digital data item with a
partial digital fingerprint" and "second comparing the full digital fingerprint
for the local digital data item with a full digital fingerprint" as recited in
claim 1?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wang discloses
"identifying a set of one or more of the remote digital data items that match
the local digital data item based on results of the first comparing" and
"identifying at least one of the set of one or more of the remote digital data
items that match the local digital data item based on results of the second
comparing" as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Wang does not disclose the claimed first and second
comparisons of the partial and full digital fingerprints, respectively (App. Br.
7-11 ). Specifically, Appellants argue "Wang merely discloses comparing
the signatures and identifying a matching item based on a single signature
comparison, without performing a second comparison of full signatures of
the matching items identified through the first comparison" (App. Br. 8).
Appellants further argue Wang does not disclose the first comparison of a
partial fingerprint followed by a comparison of the full fingerprint of the
same data (App. Br. 9). However, Appellants concede Wang teaches "a
portion of the signature stream can be compared with portions of [the]
candidate signature files, and then in the verification step[,] the same
segment or portion of the signature file can be compared with the same
segment or portion of the candidate signature file" (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Wang's comparison of the
sampled signature stream to the signature file is the first comparison of a
partial digital fingerprint (Ans. 8-9; Wang i-fi-15-8, 116, Figs. 1-5, 8). We
additionally agree Wang's verification of the signature stream, which may
be from the beginning of the signature file to the end of the candidate
reference recording (a full digital fingerprint), discloses the second
4
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
comparison step of the full digital fingerprint (Ans. 9; Wang ifil 116-11 7,
122-125, 138-141, 167, Figs. 1-5, 8). Appellants concede the verification
step is a second comparison step, although they argue that it is not "a
significant portion of the comparison process itself' and is only performed
optionally or to prevent a false positive (Reply Br. 3--4). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Wang's sampled signature comparison
discloses a partial digital fingerprint comparison, and that the verification of
the digital file from beginning to the end is a second comparison of the full
digital fingerprint (Ans. 8-9; Wang iii! 116-117, 122-125, 138-141, 167,
Figs. 1-5, 8).
Regarding the identifying steps, Appellants argue Wang does not
disclose the claimed first and second identification of the one or more sets
that match, based on the first and second comparisons, respectively (App.
Br. 11-12). Specifically, Appellants argue "Wang ... merely discloses
performing a single comparison to identify a matching recording" (App. Br.
11). Appellants further argue Wang only discloses a single match based on
one comparison (App. Br. 11 ).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Wang discloses first and second comparisons are made, which yields first
and second identified matches (Ans. 11-12). We agree with the Examiner's
finding, and Appellants concede that the verification step is a second
comparison (Ans. 11-12; Reply Br. 3--4). The claimed identification steps
do not preclude one set of digital data items to be matched based on the
corresponding comparison of both a partial and full digital fingerprint (claim
1). And we agree with the Examiner that in Wang, for each candidate (the
recited set of one or more remote digital data items) signature file, a
5
Appeal2014-007293
Application 13/595,918
verification may be performed (a second comparison) to identify the
reference recording of the media stream (Ans. 11-12; Wang i-fi-f 138-141;
Fig. 4). Thus, we determine Wang discloses identifying at least one of the
set (candidates) that matches the local digital data based on the results of the
verification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Wang discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and in
commensurately recited independent claims 10 and 19, argued on the basis
of claim 1 (App. Br. 13). Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are not
separately argued, but instead asserted as being allowable based on
arguments set forth for claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Wang.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Wang is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6