Ex Parte Hwang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613535240 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 13/535,240 06/27/2012 Douglas C. Hwang ADBLE.020P2 8690 79502 7590 12/29/2016 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP (SEAZN) (AMAZON) 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 EXAMINER RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): jayna.cartee@knobbe.com efiling @ knobbe. com S E AZN. Admin @ knobbe .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS C. HWANG, AJAY ARORA, DOUGLAS S. GOLDSTEIN, SHIRLEY C. YANG, and GUY A. STORY JR. Appeal 2016-001342 Application 13/535,240 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIVANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—25, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Audible, Inc. and Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001342 Application 13/535,240 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to interchangeable presentation of companion content with a base content. Spec. 115. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating presentation of companion content, the computer-implemented method comprising: under control of one or more computing devices configured with specific computer executable instructions, identifying a content match indicating that a base content and a corresponding companion content can be interchangeably presented, wherein the companion content corresponds to a video adaptation of the base content; generating content synchronization information that correlates portions of the base content to corresponding portions of the companion content, wherein the synchronization information indicates at least one disparity in substance between the base content and the companion content; receiving consumption information regarding consumption of the base content, the consumption information indicating a position of consumption of the base content; identifying a device to receive the content synchronization information, wherein the content synchronization information enables interchangeable presentation of the base content and the companion content from a point corresponding to the position of consumption of the base content; determining at least a portion of the companion content to transmit to the identified 2 Appeal 2016-001342 Application 13/535,240 device based at least in part on the synchronization information and the position of consumption of the base content; and transmitting the content synchronization information and the determined at least a portion of the companion content to the identified device. The Rejections Claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locker et al. (US 2011/0231474 Al; Sept. 22, 2011), Moreno et al. (US 8,131,545 Bl; Mar. 6, 2012), and Linden (US 6,912,505 B2; June 28, 2005). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites, in relevant part, “synchronization information . . . wherein the synchronization information indicates at least one disparity in substance” between a first and second content. The Examiner rejects each independent claim relying on Linden as meeting the claimed synchronization information. In particular, the Examiner finds Linden’s “content based filtering and [the claimed] synchronization are synonymous.” Final Act. 4, 7, 10. The Examiner elaborates: Linden teaches that "collaborative filtering" (See Linden, Col.l, In 50-70) is equivalent act of synchronization (i.e. representing items to indicate coexistence) of two content items with a disparity. Two user profiles (i.e. content items including a list of user's favorite items) are compared to find similar users by mapping (i.e. delineating) matching items on the two lists, and resulting in synchronized information (i.e. representing items that both user's 3 Appeal 2016-001342 Application 13/535,240 rated highly) that notes at least one disparity between the users (i.e. items that one but not the other user has not rated, is recommended). Put simply, Linden teaches that two users lists as arranged are mapped as closely as possible by their coincidences (i.e. synchronized), and disparity information between the two lists (i.e. the content) is used to recommend new items between the users. Ans. 3. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the Examiner’s findings do not meet the plain claim language. App. Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where, as here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be given its ordinary meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner offers no support for the finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of synchronization information encompasses “representing items to indicate coexistence.” We additionally observe that a relevant technical dictionary defines “synchronization” in pertinent part as: 3. In a computer, the matching of timing between components of the computer so that all are coordinated. For instance, operations performed by the operating system are generally synchronized with the signals of the machine’s internal clock. See also clock (definition 1), operating system. 4. In application or database files, version comparisons of copies of the files to ensure they contain the same data. 5. In multimedia, precise real-time processing. Audio and video are transmitted over a network in synchronization so that they can be played back together without delayed responses. 4 Appeal 2016-001342 Application 13/535,240 Microsoft Computer Dictionary 506 (5th ed. 2002). Thus, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Linden’s “content-based” comparison of various users’ favorite web pages or Linden’s collaborative filtering—which makes recommendations “without any analysis of item content” (Linden, 1:54)—as teaching or suggesting the claimed synchronization information indicating a disparity between a first and second content. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, nor the rejection of their dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-25. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—25. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation