Ex Parte Larsson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 201412020905 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2014) 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. 12/020,905 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation