Ex Parte Islam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13165076 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/165,076 06/21/2011
22879 7590 05/31/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tanvir Islam
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.
82746236 3109
EXAMINER
CHUNG, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TANVIR ISLAM, JASON YOST, and SHANE D. VOSS
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-18, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to automatically determining an option
for using visual media content based on an electronic device user's reaction
to the visual media content. Spec. i-f 10.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method, comprising:
by a processor, determining a user's degree
of preference for visual media content based on the
user's reaction to the visual media content;
by the processor, selecting an option for
managing the visual media content based on the
degree of preference; and
by the processor, providing the selected
option.
The Rejections
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Agevik (US 2012/0066704 Al; Mar. 15, 2012).
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Agevik
and Lockhart (US 2008/0299999 Al; Dec. 4, 2008).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Agevik and
Hill (US 2012/0060092 Al; Mar. 8, 2012).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Rather, we agree with and adopt as
our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons. We emphasize the following.
2
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
Anticipation
The Examiner finds Agevik anticipates the step of determining a
user's degree of preference, as recited in claim 1, through disclosure of
performing an analysis "to determine a user's response (happiness,
excitement, head nodding, head banging, etc.), i.e. degree of preference, to
audiovisual content." Final Act. 2; Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds
Agevik anticipates the step of selecting an option for managing the visual
media content based on the degree of preference through disclosure that
"subsequently, a user may play a video categorized by the degree of
preference; paras 0056--0058 additionally disclose that media may be
recommended, downloaded, purchased, etc., i.e. managed." Final Act. 2;
Ans. 12-13.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because the
cited disclosure "constitutes categorizing the user reaction into a particular
reaction category without regard to any degree of user preference for the AV
content." App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend Agevik
fails to describe the claimed selecting step because Agevik' s disclosure
"constitutes selecting particular AV content [by the user], not selecting an
'option for managing' the AV content [by the processor]." App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 2.
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants fail to define explicitly the term "degree" in the
claims or the Specification. Ans. 12. 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
3
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be
given its ordinary meaning. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Further, Appellants direct our attention to the
following disclosure in the Specification, which we find provides context for
the claimed "degree of preference" without explicitly defining the limitation:
The degree of preference may be on any scale of
degree of preference. For example, a user's
reaction may be categorized in a scale of three
levels or five levels of preference. In some cases,
the processor may categorize the reaction on a two
level scale, such as where a user is determined to
like or dislike the visual media content.
App. Br. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 25).
In light of these findings, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Agevik discloses categorizing rather than determining a
degree. Appellants fail to explain persuasively why the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed determination of a user's degree of preference
would not encompass Agevik's determination of a user's reaction based on a
response-including happiness and excitement (Agevik, i-f 53}-particularly
given the Specification's disclosure of the degree as encompassing, for
example, "a two level scale, such as where a user is determined to like or
dislike the visual media content." Spec. i-f 25. To the extent Appellants
contend the cited portions of Agevik fail to disclose determining the
magnitude of the user's preference, we disagree. Agevik states the analysis
may be "based on such factors as repetition of a characteristic of the data
[and] magnitude of a characteristic of the data." Agevik, i-f 5 3 (emphasis
added).
4
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding the
claimed step of "by the processor, selecting an option for managing the
visual media content based on the degree of preference." As a threshold
matter, we agree with the Examiner that "whether [Agevik's] user makes a
selection or not, the function of selecting is performed 'by a processor'.
There is no definite or explicit recitation of automation in the present claim
language." Ans. 12. Moreover, Appellants fail to explain persuasively why
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed selecting an option for
managing content would not encompass Agevik's provision of
recommending, downloading, and purchasing options for content in
response to determining the user is having a positive reaction (Agevik, i-fi-156
and 57}-particularly given the Specification's disclosure of the claimed
selecting of options for managing as encompassing, for example, "edit,
erase, or store the image" (Spec. i127) and "a highly preferred image may be
posted on a social networking site, a somewhat preferred image may be
forwarded to a friend, a not preferred image may be saved without sharing,
and a strongly not preferred image may be erased." Spec. i128.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Appellants further contend Agevik
fails to disclose the claimed selecting comprises "mapping the degree of
preference to at least one option selected from multiple options for managing
the visual media content." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. We disagree. As
discussed above, Agevik discloses:
For example, if the tagging function 56 determines
that a user has had a positive reaction to AV
content (e.g., smiling, head banging, etc.), the
tagging function 56 may cause the AV content
function 54 to send a message to the electronic
device prompting the user as to whether the user
5
Appeal2014-007168
Application 13/165,076
desires to download and/or purchase the AV
content.
Agevik, i-f 57 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections
of claims 1 and 16. Appellants present no further arguments on claims 2-8
and 10-15. App. Br. 8-9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections of claims 2-8 and 10-15.
Obviousness
Appellants present no further arguments on claims 9, 1 7, and 18,
beyond those discussed above. App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 9, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6