Ex Parte Larsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2014

12020905 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2014)

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.
12/020,905 01/28/2008 Bo Larsson 9342-412 2878
54414 7590 03/14/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2014 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 BO LARSSON, HENRIK BENGTSSON, BJORN LINDQUIST,
MARKUS ANDREASSON, PER ASTRAND, and OLIVIER MOLINER
____________

Appeal 2011-012809
Application 12/020,905
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012809
Application 12/020,905

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bo Larsson et al (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method, system, and computer
program for automatically creating a social networking service. Independent
claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for automatically creating a social
networking service (SNS) session, comprising:

generating at and transmitting from a first device a first
audio and/or video fingerprint of an audio and/or video event,
the first audio and/or video fingerprint having a first
predetermined length (T);

periodically transmitting from the first device, a second
audio and/or video fingerprint to a server, the second audio
and/or video fingerprint having a second predetermined length
(t), smaller than the first predetermined length (T), and
including data associated with the audio and/or video event that
is later in time than data included in the first audio and/or video
fingerprint; and

joining the SNS session automatically created by the
server responsive to receipt, at the server, of a third audio
and/or video fingerprint having the first predetermined length
(T) from a second device that includes a portion of the first
audio and/or video fingerprint or the second audio and/or video
fingerprint periodically transmitted from the first device.

Appeal 2011-012809
Application 12/020,905

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Covell (US 2007/0124756 A1, published May 31,
2007) in view of Bilobrov (US 2007/0055500 A1, published Mar. 8, 2007).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner takes the position that Covell discloses all limitations
of the claimed invention, including first and second fingerprints with
predetermined lengths (T) and (t), but does not disclose that predetermined
length (t) is smaller than predetermined length (T). Ans. 5-6. The Examiner
cites to paragraph [0007] of Bilobrov as disclosing that “multiple
fingerprints may be combined in order to assist in identifying the media.”1
Ans. 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the Covell invention to transmit fingerprints having a second predetermined
length (t) smaller than a first predetermined length (T), by “combin[ing]
snippets [of length t] into a longer snippet, thus producing a snippet of
length T,” as purportedly taught by Bilobrov’s combining of “multiple
fingerprints,” then “transmit[ting] the single snippet of length t in a manner
consistent with Covell,” to arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 13-14.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Covell, once modified by
Bilobrov, can be reasonably construed as teaching “transmit[ting] the single
snippet of length t” in addition to transmitting “snippet[s] of length T”

1 The exact language in Bilobrov is as follows: “To enhance fingerprint
uniqueness and thus increase the probability of correct recognition (and
decrease false positive rate), small sub fingerprints can be combined into
larger blocks representing about three to five seconds of audio.” Bilobrov,
p. 3, para. [0007].
Appeal 2011-012809
Application 12/020,905

4
resulting from combining the smaller snippets. Ans. 13-14. Appellants
persuasively argue that they “fail to see how a teaching of combining
fingerprints to enhance fingerprint uniqueness… would lead one of skill in
the art to modify Covell to teach a second audio and/or video fingerprint
having a smaller length than the first predetermined length as recited in
Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7. In other words, the Examiner has not explained
why, once Covell is modified by Bilobrov to combine smaller fingerprints
into larger blocks for the purpose of “enhanc[ing] fingerprint uniqueness,”
the system would also continue to periodically transmit smaller, shorter
fingerprints as claimed. As such, the Examiner’s proposed modification,
and the conclusion that the subject matter of the claims would have been
obvious over Covell and Bilobrov, are not supported by rational
underpinnings.
The rejection of claims 1-28 is not sustained.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-28 as being obvious over Covell and
Bilobrov is reversed.

REVERSED

mls