Ex Parte Ikeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13270822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/270,822 10/11/2011 Tetsuo IKEDA 1946-0473 7024
60803 7590 09/26/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
EXAMINER
VO, HUYEN X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte TETSUO IKEDA
and
YASUYUKI KOGA
____________

Appeal 2015-006457
Application 13/270,822
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2015-006457
Application 13/270,822

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
“determining a lyric importance level” using “sections corresponding to a
subset of the lyrics” (Title (capitalization altered); Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for determining a lyric importance
level, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor executing instructions stored in the memory
to:
acquire lyric information, the lyric information
identifying:
lyrics of a song; and
lyric location information indicating
locations of the lyrics within the song;
acquire section information, the section information
identifying:
sections of the song;
section importance levels corresponding to
the sections based on morpheme analysis of
the sections; and
section location information indicating
locations of the sections within the song;
identify, based on the lyric location information and
the section location information, one or more sections
corresponding to a subset of the lyrics; and
determine, based on the section importance levels,
a lyric importance level of the subset.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Murray (US 2009/0307207 A1; Dec. 10, 2009) and
Hattori (US 2010/0161622 A1; June 24, 2010).
Appeal 2015-006457
Application 13/270,822

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Odagawa (US 7,228,229 B2;
June 5, 2007) and Hattori.

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend Hattori does not teach or
suggest identifying section importance levels of a song based on morpheme
analysis of the sections of the song; rather, Hattori analyzes a Web page
(App. Br. 14 (citing Hattori ¶¶ 62–74)). According to Appellants, “it would
be unreasonable to substitute the disclosed ‘Web page’ of Hattori to teach or
suggest the claim recitations that require ‘morpheme analysis of the section
of the song’” because a “‘Web page’ and the recited ‘song’ are significantly
different” (App. Br. 14–15).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants
improperly attack Hattori individually where the rejection is based on a
combination of Murray and Hattori. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner asserts Murray teaches
identifying song sections and their importance levels (Final Act. 3 (citing
Murray ¶¶ 40, 44)). The Examiner asserts Hattori teaches identifying
section importance levels corresponding to text sections based on morpheme
analysis of the sections (Final Act. 4 (citing Hattori ¶¶ 62–67, 73–74)).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings as to the combined teachings of Murray and Hattori (Ans. 2–4).
Appellants also argue that because Hattori’s Web page is not similar
to Murray’s song, the Examiner’s combination of Hattori and Murray is
improper, relying on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5).
Appeal 2015-006457
Application 13/270,822

4
The Examiner has provided sufficient articulation for combining Hattori’s
morpheme analysis technique with Murray’s song section identification to
improve information filtering (Final Act. 4 (citing Hattori ¶ 12)). We agree
with the Examiner that:
both [a] section of [Murray’s] song and [a] section of [Hattori’s]
web page contain textual data, [so] it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill . . . to have recognized that morpheme
analysis of textual data of a song is no different than
morphological analysis of textual data of a web page
(Ans. 3). Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion.
Appellants also contend, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that
“Murray simply determines which words and phrases of the lyrics contain
the most meaning, which is clearly different than acquiring information that
identifies section importance levels corresponding to respective sections
based on any analysis of the words” (Reply Br. 4). The Reply Brief is not an
opportunity to present new arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex parte
Borden, 2010 WL 191083 at *2 (BPAI 2010) (informative); see also 37
C.F.R § 41.41(b)(2) (2012). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
Murray identifies a song sections’ importance based on word analysis (Final
Act. 3). For example, Murray’s Figure 2 and paragraphs 41 and 46 disclose
a song section or lyric phrase (“Take me out to the ballgame”) is assigned a
high importance level based on analysis of the phrase words (see Murray,
Fig. 2, ¶¶ 41, 46).
In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
Appeal 2015-006457
Application 13/270,822

5
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 18, argued
together, and dependent claims 2–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 dependent
therefrom, as obvious over the combination of Murray and Hattori (App. Br.
13, 15–16).
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over
Odagawa and Hattori (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5–6). Appellants’ support for
this contention, however, relies on Appellants’ argument that Hattori
analyzes Web pages and does not teach or suggest the claimed identifying a
song sections’ importance levels based on morpheme analysis, which we do
not find compelling as discussed supra (App. Br. 17). We also agree with
the Examiner, the combination of Hattori’s morpheme analysis and
Odagawa’s identification of a song sections’ importance levels teaches and
suggests the claimed identifying song sections’ importance levels (Final Act.
8–9; Ans. 4). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 15, and 18, argued together, as obvious over the combination of
Odagawa and Hattori, and dependent claims 2, 3, 16, and 19 dependent
therefrom (App. Br. 17).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED