Ex Parte Kuspa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12789749 (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.
12/789,749 05/28/2010 David A. Kuspa B1170 9211
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
12/29/2016 EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. KUSPA
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to providing script data. Spec., Title. Claim
1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving script metadata extracted from a script for a
program that is assembled from multiple clips of content, the
script metadata comprising clip metadata associated with one of
the clips that corresponds to a particular portion of the program;
storing the clip metadata in the one clip, the clip metadata
embedded into the one clip as part of the one clip;
receiving a request to revise the clip metadata stored in the
one clip;
revising the clip metadata in accordance with the request
to revise the clip metadata, including generating revised clip
metadata;
storing the revised clip metadata in the one clip, the
revised clip metadata embedded into the one clip as part of the
one clip and replacing the clip metadata of the one clip; and
generating a revised script using the revised clip metadata.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Weinberger et al. US 2007/0233738 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Lanham et al. US 2010/0299131 Al Nov. 25, 2010
Black US 8,064,752 B1 Nov. 22, 2011
2
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lanham, Weinberger, and Black. Final Act. 2—18.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Black’s insertion of metadata resulting from the combination of two
clips into a newly-produced clip fails to teach replacing the original
clip metadata of the one clip with revised clip metadata as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 13.
2. The Examiner’s rationale for combining Lanham, Weinberger, and
Black for the purpose of keeping track and storing metadata easily
“lacks in particularity, and is so sweepingly broad that it could be used
to argue for obviousness of any invention” and is, therefore,
inadequate. App. Br. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—23)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 18—28) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
3
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
In connection with contention 1, Appellant argues the prior art is
deficient because (i) “Lanham and Weinberger are missing storing the
revised clip metadata in the one clip” and (ii) “Black simply does not discuss
that revised clip metadata is embedded into a particular clip to replace the
clip metadata of that particular clip.” App. Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument fails to address the Examiner’s findings because
(i) Black, not the argued Lanham, is applied for teaching storing the revised
clip metadata in the one clip (Final Act. 5—6, Ans. 25—26) and (ii) Lanham,
not the argued Black, is applied for teaching generating revised clip
metadata (Final Act. 3—4, Ans. 24). The Examiner acknowledges neither
Lanham nor Weinberger “disclose[s] ... the revised clip metadata embedded
into the one clip as part of the one clip and replacing the clip metadata”
(Final Act. 5—6) and, therefore, cures the deficiency by relying on Black’s
metadata embedded in a video clip for teaching embedding Lanham’s
revised clip metadata into a video clip. Final Act. 6, Ans. 25—26. The
Examiner makes clear it is the combination of Lanham, Weinberger, and
Black that teaches the disputed limitation, not one individual reference. Id.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, because
the asserted combination teaches or suggests embedding the original clip
metadata into the one clip and then embedding the revised clip metadata into
the one clip, the combination further teaches or suggests the original
metadata is replaced by the revised metadata. Final Act. 6, Ans. 25—26.
Therefore we disagree with Appellant’s argument the prior art fails to teach
4
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
or suggest the disputed limitation and contention 1 is unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2, Appellant argues the Examiner’s
reasoning for modifying Lanham and Weinberger to store the revised
metadata in the one clip “for the purpose of keeping track and storing
metadata (embedded into the video clips) easily” (Final Act. 6) is inadequate
because it “lacks in particularity, and is so sweepingly broad that it could be
used to argue for obviousness of any invention.” (App. Br. 13—14). The
Examiner responds by further finding the motivation for making the
combination “is to improve indexing and searching data in different scenes
and keeping track and storing metadata (embedded into the video clips)
easily.” Ans. 22.
Appellant’s contention 2 is also unpersuasive. Such a contention
amounts to no more than attorney argument unsupported by sufficient
evidence or technical reasoning persuasive of Examiner error.1 Furthermore,
Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s reasoning the modification
improves indexing, searching, and keeping track of metadata by embedding
the metadata into the video clips. In the absence of evidence or persuasive
argument that the Examiner’s rationale is erroneous, we find the Examiner
has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In
contrast, Appellant fails to provide persuasive evidence or explanation
1 Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Appeal 2016-000831
Application 12/789,749
showing that the Examiner’s asserted combination is anything other than the
combination of familiar elements yielding no more than predictable results.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416—17. Such a combination is itself a sufficient
reasoning with rational underpinning to support a finding of obviousness.
Id.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons,2 independent claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Lanham, Weinberger, and Black together with the rejection of
dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—21 which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 Merely restating, with respect to a second claim, an argument, previously
presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate
patentability of the two claims.
6