Ex Parte Dudkiewicz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2008

09793357 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GIL GAVRIEL DUDKIEWICZ
____________

Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 25, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

2
Appellant’s invention relates to a device for generating metadata for a
programming event in which descriptive information data and timing
information data that correspond to the programming event are received.
After the data is analyzed to determine goodness of fit scores that
correspond to categories of a classification hierarchy, generated metadata for
the programming event that includes time data, descriptive data, and
goodness of fit scores is stored in the device. (Specification ¶ 0017- ¶ 0028).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method in a data processing device for generating metadata that
describes the subject matter of segments of a program, comprising:
receiving in the data processing device data corresponding to a program, the
data including production data comprising descriptive information
and timing information;
analyzing by the data processing device the data to determine individual
segments of the program that pertain to different subject matter and
times and durations of the individual segments;
analyzing by the data processing device the data to assign goodness of fit
scores for each segment corresponding to subject matter categories of
a subject matter classification hierarchy,
wherein the subject matter categories of the hierarchy comprise at least a set
of top-level categories, sets of first level sub-categories each
corresponding to and encompassed by a respective one of said top-
level categories, and sets of second level sub-categories each
corresponding to and encompassed by a respective one of said first
level sub-categories; and

Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

3
storing metadata for each segment, the metadata comprising goodness of fit
scores and their associated categories, time data, and descriptive data.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Lawler US 5,758,259 May 26, 1998
Hullinger US 6,295,092 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
(filed Jul. 30, 1998)
Block US 6,675,384 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
(filed Dec. 21, 1995)

Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20, all of the appealed claims,
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Block in
view of Hullinger, and further in view of Lawler.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant 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)(1)(vii)].

ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to the appealed claims 1-3, 6,
8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention have found it obvious to combine Block, Hullinger, and
Lawler to render the claimed invention unpatentable?

Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears
the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments in response to the obviousness rejection of
each of the appealed independent claims 1, 8, and 15 assert a failure by the
Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since, even if proper
motivation for the proposed combination were established, all of the claimed
limitations would not be taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. In particular, Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br.
2-4) focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention, none
of the applied Block, Hullinger, or Lawler references discloses the receipt
Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

5
and analysis of program production data which includes timing information,
a feature present in each of the appealed independent claims. According to
Appellant, the synchronization signal present in the Block reference, relied
upon by the Examiner as disclosing the claimed timing information feature,
cannot be considered as part of the received production data since it provides
no information about the program content which would enable the
determination of the timing and duration of individual program segments as
claimed.
After reviewing the applied prior art references in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position
as stated in the Briefs. In our view, to whatever extent the claimed
terminology “timing information,” when read in isolation, may be
considered to correspond to synchronizing information such as in Block, as
asserted by the Examiner (Ans. 5 and 8-10), it is apparent that Block’s
synchronization signal does not correspond to the claimed “timing
information” when read in the context of the entirety of the claim language.
The synchronization signal described by Block (col. 4, l. 62-col. 5, l.
41) enables the descriptive program label provided by label editor 160 to be
entered into the correct place in the transmitted video stream, but provides
no timing information that is related to program content, i.e., program
production timing information as claimed. It is this program production
timing information which, upon analysis, enables the determination of the
times and duration of individual program segments as specifically set forth
in the appealed claims.
We recognize that the Examiner, in the “Response to Argument”
section of the Answer suggests that the Hullinger reference, relied upon to
Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

6
provide a teaching of automated analysis of program production data, also
provides a teaching of receiving and analyzing program production timing
information. According to the Examiner (Ans. 11), Hullinger’s division of a
broadcast program into program segments for analysis necessarily uses
timing information to implement the program division. We do not find any
evidence on the record before us to support such a conclusion. As pointed
out by Appellant (Reply Br. 3 and 4), it is not necessary to have timing
information in order to separate a broadcast program into segments as such
segments can be determined based solely on an analysis of subject matter
content. Further, while the bar graph and pie charts illustrated in Figure 11
of Hullinger arguably enable the determination of the duration of individual
program segments, there is no indication of the presence of any timing
information that would enable the determination of the “times” of the
program segments as claimed.
Lastly, we have reviewed the disclosure of Lawler which has been
applied by the Examiner to address the claimed feature of assigning
goodness-of-fit scores to a hierarchical arrangement of categories and sub-
categories of broadcast programs. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosure of Lawler which overcomes the previously discussed deficiencies
of Block and Hullinger in disclosing the claimed receiving of program
production timing information to determine the times and durations of
individual program segments.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the applied
prior art references, even if combined, do not support the obviousness
rejection. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2008-0520
Application 09/793,357

7
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, nor of claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13,
16, 17, and 20 dependent thereon.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of any of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

David A. Blumenthal
FOLEY & LARDNER
2029 Century Park East - Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021