Ex Parte Katpelly et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201612251835 (P.T.A.B. May. 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. 12/251,835 10/15/2008 Ravi Reddy Katpelly CT-MED-051/US (P285) 6299 71739 7590 05/31/2016 Concert Technology Corporation 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER COLUCCI, MICHAEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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 RAVI REDDY KATPELLY and KUNAL KANDEKAR1 ____________ Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Porto Technology, LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 2 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to methods and systems for analyzing an audio track associated with a media item, automatically identifying tags in the media track, and matching known acquaintances of a user with the tags. See Spec. ¶ 5; Abstract. Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows: 1. A method for automatically identifying, by a computer, a tag for a media item associated with a user, comprising: obtaining at least one contact associated with the user; determining that a name referenced in an audio track matches the at least one contact; and selecting one of the name and the at least one contact as the tag for the media item. REJECTIONS Claims 1–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zuckerberg et al. (US 7,945,653 B2; May 17, 2011) (“Zuckerberg”), Howell et al. (US 2007/0153989 A1; July 5, 2007) (“Howell”), and Varghese (US 2006/0239648 A1; Oct. 26, 2006). Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zuckerberg, Howell, Varghese, and Schumacher et al (US 2008/0005106 A1; Jan. 3, 2008) (“Schumacher”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action, and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings and Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 3 conclusions that are consistent with our analysis. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Claims 1–8 and 10 Appellants argue Zuckerberg teaches away from automatically identifying, by a computer, a tag for a media item associated with a user that includes selecting one of the name and the at least one contact as the tag for the media item because Zuckerberg teaches the user selection of a tag from a tag list, and acceptance of the tag by a friend. See App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Ans. 24 (citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 96 (CCPA 1958)). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because Appellants do not explain sufficiently how Zuckerberg suggests that any developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of Appellants’ claimed invention (i.e., automatic tagging). See Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A] reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the [] invention”). A teaching of something different (i.e., user selection of tags) does not constitute a teaching away. In addition, Appellants’ arguments that Venner does not address a teaching away from elements of the claims (see Reply Br. 4) are misplaced because the Examiner does not rely upon Venner to address whether Zuckerberg teaches away from automatically identifying a tag. Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 4 Appellants further argue that [n]o teaching or suggestion could be found in Howell that discloses or renders obvious the features of determining that a name referenced in an audio track matches the at least one contact and selecting one of the name and the at least one contact as the tag for the media item. App. Br. 20–21. Appellants present an identical argument with respect to the teachings of Varghese. See App. Br. 21. On the foregoing bases, Appellants assert the combination of Zuckerberg and Howell, and the combination of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese, do not disclose or render obvious “determining that a name referenced in an audio track matches the at least one contact”, and “selecting one of the name and the at least one contact as the tag for the media item,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because they address the teachings of Howell alone and Varghese alone, rather than addressing the Examiner’s findings that rely on the combined teachings of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Zuckerberg’s teachings of identifying a tag for a media item associated with a user, and selecting one of the name and the at least one contact as the tag for the media item, as modified by Howell’s teachings of using a personal grammar to identify key elements in text transcribed from an audio recording by highlighting/tagging names, email addresses, phone numbers. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Zuckerberg 1:53–2:7, 8:49–67, 9:31–50; Howell ¶¶ 19, 30, Fig. 4); Ans. 25 (citing Zuckerberg 1:53–2:7; Howell ¶¶ 19, 30, Fig. 4). Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 5 For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–8 and 10 dependent therefrom and not separately argued. Claims 11–15, 17–20, and 22 Similar to Appellants’ arguments addressing claim 1, Appellants argue Zuckerberg teaches away from “a selection module adapted to select a tag as a function of the at least one identifier for the media item,” as recited in independent claim 11, and “a control system adapted to: . . . compare a name referenced in an audio track to at least one identifier; determine that the name matches the at least one identifier; and select a tag as a function of the at least one identifier for the media item,” as recited in independent claim 18. App. Br. 22, 24–25. For the same reasons as those explained above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that Zuckerberg teaches away from the claimed invention. Also similar to Appellants’ arguments addressing claim 1, with respect to claim 11, Appellants argue that [n]o teaching or suggestion could be found in Howell that discloses or renders obvious a determination module adapted to determine that a name referenced in an audio track associated with the media item matches the at least one identifier and a selection module adapted to select a tag as a function of the at least one identifier for the media item. App. Br. 23. In regard to claim 18, Appellants argue that [n]o teaching or suggestion could be found in Howell that discloses or renders obvious a control system adapted to compare a name referenced in an audio track to at least one identifier, determine that the name matches the at least one identifier, and select a tag as a function of the at least one identifier for the media item. Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 6 Id. at 26. Appellants present similar arguments with respect to the teachings of Varghese. See id. at 24, 26–27. On the foregoing bases, Appellants assert the combination of Zuckerberg and Howell, and the combination of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese, do not disclose or render obvious the disputed limitations of claims 11 and 18. See id. at 23–24, 26–27. For the same reasons as those explained above with respect to claim 1, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they address the teachings of Howell alone and Varghese alone, rather than addressing the combined teachings of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 18, and claims 12–15, 17–20, and 22 dependent therefrom and not separately argued. Clams 9, 16, and 21 Appellants argue that Zuckerberg does not teach or suggest determining that the name referenced in the audio track matches the at least one contact comprises determining that the name referenced in the audio track matched at least two of the plurality of contacts, as recited in dependent claim 9. App. Br. 29–30 (citing Zuckerberg 8:49–67, Fig. 5). Appellants contend Zuckerberg does not disclose or render obvious presenting at least two of the plurality of contacts to the user and receiving a user selection of one of the at least two of the plurality of the contacts. Id. at 30–31 (citing Zuckerberg 9:31–50). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because they address the teachings of Zuckerberg alone, rather than addressing the Examiner’s findings that rely on the combined teachings of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 7 references. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Zuckerberg’s teachings of determining whether the name referenced in a media item matches at least two of the plurality of contacts as modified by Howell’s teachings of using a personal grammar to identify key elements in text transcribed from an audio recording by highlighting/tagging names, email addresses, phone numbers. See Final Act. 10–11 (citing Zuckerberg 8:49–67, 9:31–50; Howell ¶¶ 19, 30, Fig. 4); see also Ans. 32 (explaining that Zuckerberg’s Fig. 5 illustrates two suggested contacts “Bob White” and “Brian Bathurst” as tags for a user to select). For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 16, and 21. Claims 23–25 Appellants first argue that the final office action does not address how either Zuckerberg, Howell, or Varghese teaches “extracting an audio track from video content,” as recited in claim 23. App. Br. 27–28. Appellants’ argument is misplaced because the Examiner explains that Zuckerberg fails to teach audio or an audio track derived from a media item or video, and relies on Varghese for teaching audio or an audio track derived from an audiovisual media item. See Final Act. 19–20. Appellants’ argument does not otherwise explain sufficiently why the teachings of the references relied upon by the Examiner do not teach or suggest “extracting an audio track from video content,” as recited in claim 23. Appellants also argue Zuckerberg does not disclose or render obvious “comparing the text to a plurality of contacts to identify an acquaintance associated with the video content,” as recited in claim 23 App. Br. 27–29 (citing Zuckerberg 8:47–9:3, Fig. 5). Appellants further assert Howell and Varghese do not disclose or render obvious these features. Id. at 29. Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 8 Appellants contend neither Zuckerberg, nor Howell, nor Varghese, singly or in combination discloses or renders obvious the disputed limitation of claim 23. Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because they address the teachings of Zuckerberg alone, rather than addressing the Examiner’s findings that rely on the combined teachings of Zuckerberg, Howell, and Varghese. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Zuckerberg’s teachings of comparing the text to a plurality of contacts to identify an acquaintance associated with a media item, as modified by Howell’s teachings of using a personal grammar to identify key elements in text transcribed from an audio recording by highlighting/tagging names, email addresses, phone numbers. See Final Act. 17–18 (citing Zuckerberg 8:49–67; Howell ¶¶ 19, 30, Fig. 4); see Ans. 30–31 (citing Zuckerberg 1:53– 2:7; Howell ¶ 30, Fig. 4) For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23, and claims 24 and 25 dependent therefrom and not separately argued. Claim 26 Appellants argue generating phonetic codes in a weighting system for probabilistic matching as taught by Schumacher does not disclose or render obvious converting the text to a phonetic code for the text, converting at least one of the plurality of contacts to a phonetic code for the at least one contact, and determining whether the phonetic code for the text matches the phonetic code for the at least one contact, as recited in dependent claim 26. App. Br. 32. The Examiner finds that Schumacher’s teaching of an Appeal 2014-001275 Application 12/251,835 9 algorithm to deal with phonetic differences in text that permits linking varying forms of a word to match a database value correctly with different phonetic or spelling presentation (e.g., representing a person’s proper name in various forms), teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 26. Final Act. 20–21 (citing Schumacher ¶¶ 47, 57, 160, Table 7); Ans. 32 (citing Schumacher ¶¶ 47, 57, 160, Table 7). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because Appellants’ argument addresses broadly Schumacher’s disclosure of a weighting system for probabilistic matching, and does not explain adequately why the teachings of Schumacher, relied upon by the Examiner, do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 26. For example, Appellants do not address Schumacher’s teaching, relied upon by the Examiner, that the operator of a master entity index (MEI) can provide a rule that the nickname “Bill” is the same as the full name “William,” and cause the MEI to determine that data records otherwise identical except for the first name of “Bill” and “William” contain information about the same entity and should be linked together. See Schumacher ¶ 47; Final Act. 20–21. For this reason, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 26. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–26. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation