Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

13570179 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
13/570,179 08/08/2012 Douglas C. Hwang ADBLE.020P5 1082
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 and GUY A. STORY JR.
Appeal 2016-000822
Application 13/570,179
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 11—23, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application.2 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.
2 Claims 1—10 have been cancelled. App. Br. 18.
Appeal 2016-000822
Application 13/570,179
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to managing decoupled companion
content so that it can be synchronized. Spec. 120.
Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. A computer-implemented method
comprising:
as implemented by one or more computing
devices configured with specific executable
instructions,
receiving audio content that includes
words read aloud from published digital
content, wherein the audio content is received
at least substantially in real time as the words
are read aloud;
generating content synchronization
information for the received audio content
and the published digital content, wherein the
content synchronization information
associates portions of the audio content with
corresponding portions of the published
digital content; and
causing visual presentation of the
published digital content in synchronization
with the received audio content as the audio
content is received, wherein causing the
visual presentation includes changing
portions of the published digital content
presented for display to correspond to audio
portions received in the audio content,
wherein the published digital content is
presented in synchronization with the
received audio content based at least in part
on the generated content synchronization
information.
2
Appeal 2016-000822
Application 13/570,179
The Rejection
Claims 11—23 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 Griggs (US 7,231,351 Bl; June 12, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Claims 20—23
Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “receiving audio content that
includes words read aloud from published digital content, wherein the audio
content is received at least substantially in real time as the words are read
aloud.” (Emphasis added). The Examiner rejects independent claim 11 and
elaborates:
“Audio content” may be any audible transcription
(e.g. a computer reading the text; a human
recording; an MP3 or MP4 file type) of the eBook.
. . . Locker provides for execution (i.e. processing)
of various audio file types in order for the speaker
to produce (i.e. receive from processing at a
speaker) audio data.”
Ans. 2. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the
Examiner’s findings do not meet the plain claim language. Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
the disputed limitation requires that the audio content be received
substantially in real time when that content is being read aloud from
published digital content. Indeed, the antecedent basis of “the words are
read aloud” is the earlier-recited “words read aloud.” However, the
Examiner’s findings in Locker show, at best, only a speaker generating
3
Appeal 2016-000822
Application 13/570,179
sounds from words previously read aloud and stored in a recording. See
Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 11, nor the rejection of its dependent claims 12—19.
Claims 20—23
Claim 20 recites, in relevant part, “generating for display portions of
the published digital content in synchronization with aural presentation of
the streaming audio content as the streaming audio content is received.”
(Emphasis added). The Examiner rejects independent claim 20 citing
Moreno’s figure 2 as meeting the disputed limitation. Final Act. 11.
Appellants contend the cited figure does not teach or suggest the relevant
claim limitation. App. Br. 13. In response, the Examiner asks that we, “See
Claim 11 response to arguments.” Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellants. It is axiomatic that “rejections on
obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead,
there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 418
(2007) (quoting Federal Circuit statement with approval). We have
reviewed the figure cited by the Examiner and the responses to which the
Examiner refers. We are unable to discern therein a prima facie showing of
a teaching or suggestion in Moreno of the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 20, nor the rejection of its dependent claims 21—23.
4
Appeal 2016-000822
Application 13/570,179
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 11—23.
REVERSED
5