Ex Parte Huffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12121913 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/121,913 05/16/2008
26212 7590 03/08/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (ACCENTURE)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lon Joseph Huffman
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.
12587-0010002 7754
EXAMINER
ULLAH MASUD, MOHAMMAD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LON JOSEPH HUFFMAN,
DINGHWA CONNIE KO,
and TA CHIH MINH TSAI
Appeal2013---005419
Application 12/121,913
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Lon Joseph Huffman, Dinghwa Connie Ko, and Ta Chih Minh Tsai
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims
2-13, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-31, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed August 3, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March 7,
Appeal2013-005419
Application 12/121,913
The Appellants invented a way of allocating digital library subscription
revenue. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 2, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
2. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[ 1] determining a subscription revenue
associated with an aggregation of content assets;
[2] determining an earned revenue portion of the subscription
revenue;
[3] receiving coefficient driver values using a user interface,
wherein one or more of the coefficient driver values
correspond to
a number of top ten songs for a creator of one or
more of the content assets of the aggregation,
a number of platinum records for the creator,
a number of years the creator has been with a
recording company,
or
a number of records produced by the creator;
[ 4] dynamically generating, by one or more processors,
a conditioning coefficient for the one or more content
assets of the aggregation
using the received coefficient driver values,
wherein the conditioning coefficient is a value that is
factored into a royalty payment made to the creator of the
one or more content assets;
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 10, 2013), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 5, 2012).
2
Appeal2013-005419
Application 12/121,913
[ 5] calculating a distributed revenue portion
of the earned revenue portion
using the dynamically generated conditioning coefficient;
and
[ 6] affecting a royalty payment
made to the creator of the one or more of the content
assets of the aggregation
based on the distributed revenue portion.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Otsuka US 2003/0172012 Al
Brechter US 2004/0049482 Al
Goino US 7,110,961 Bl
Sep. 11,2003
Mar. 11, 2004
Sep. 19,2006
Claims 2-13, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Brechter and Otsuka.
Claims 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brechter, Otsuka, and Goino.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether Brechter describes
receiving coefficient driver values using a user interface.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3
Appeal2013-005419
Application 12/121,913
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Brecht er
01. Brechter is directed to managing intellectual property rights.
Brechter para. 1.
02. Brechter describes reporting data required for computing
royalty payment and executing payment. Brechter para. 30.
03. Brechter describes a user interface. Brechter para. 63.
04. Brechter describes category-attribute pairs. Brechter para. 102.
05. Brechter describes number of copies as one of the contract
indicators. Brechter para. 117.
06. Brechter describes number of copies as a number multiplied by
a rate to determine royalty amount. Brechter para. 118; Fig. 8.
Otsuka
07. Otsuka is directed to contents circulation charge distribution
and applying an electronic trading of the contents circulating on a
network. Otsuka para. 2.
08. Otsuka describes the activity of distributing content from an
aggregation of license holders as an activity worthy of a portion of
the content royalty. Otsuka para. 77.
Goino
09. Goino is directed to selling a right associated with a game
through a computer network. Goino 1:6-7.
4
Appeal2013-005419
Application 12/121,913
10. Goino describes advertising rates varying with game popularity.
Goino 5:52-58.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the references fail to
describe receiving coefficient driver values using a user interface. App. Br.
4--7. The Examiner finds that Brechter describes both a user interface and
category attribute pairs. Final Act. 3. The Examiner maps Brechter's
attributes in its category-attribute pairs to the recited coefficient driver
values. In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner repeats this
finding. Ans. 3. The Examiner makes no finding that the user interface is
used to receive such category attribute pairs.
We find no referral by Brechter to its user interface other than its single
description that it has one. FF 03. Brechter does not describe any particular
use for its user interface, and therefore does not describe using the interface
to receive category attribute pairs. Thus, the Examiner has failed to present
a prima facie case as to limitation [3] of claim 2. The remaining
independent claims have similar limitations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 2-13, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brechter and Otsuka is improper.
The rejection of claims 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brechter, Otsuka, and Goino is improper.
5
Appeal2013-005419
Application 12/121,913
uECISION
The rejection of claims 2-13, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-31 is reversed.
REVERSED
6