Ex Parte LevyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 201411614921 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 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. 11/614,921 12/21/2006 Kenneth L. Levy P1245 1118 23735 7590 03/06/2014 DIGIMARC CORPORATION 9405 SW GEMINI DRIVE BEAVERTON, OR 97008 EXAMINER KHAKHAR, NIRAV K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/06/2014 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 KENNETH L. LEVY ____________ Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-18 (App. Br. 3). Examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Digimarc Corporation (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a method of associating a content object with metadata, one or more computer readable media on which is stored instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, perform acts of associating a content object with metadata, and a system for associating a content object with metadata. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are representative and are reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Brief. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ferrel2 and Orleth.3 ISSUE Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support a conclusion that the combination of Ferrel and Orleth suggest “receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers” and “providing a unique bounding identifier for the set of content identifiers” as is required by Appellant’s claimed invention? FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF) FF 1. According to Appellant’s Specification the term “‘content’ . . . refers to pictures, music, movies and all of their sundry creative brethren which collectively might fall under the grand umbrella named ‘creative works’” (Spec. 1: 10-12). FF 2. “[A] given creative work can be thought of as an entity or ‘content object’” (id. at l. 11). FF 3. “Metadata generally refers to information associated with a content object” (id. at ll. 19-20). 2 Ferrel et al., US 5,907,837, May 25, 1999. 3 Orleth et al., US 2004/0215754 A1, Oct. 28, 2004. Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 3 FF 4. Appellant’s method associates [A] content object with metadata us[ing] a combination of a content identifier and a bounding identifier to enable handling of disparate sets of content identifiers for content objects with potentially conflicting content identifiers. The method receives a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers. In provides a unique bonding identifier for the set of content identifiers. This unique bonding identifier is used in combination with the content identifier to form a globally unique identifier for the content object. (Spec. 10: 8-13; see Ans. 12.) FF 5. Ferrel’s “invention relates to information retrieval systems and more particularly, to a system and method for indexing, querying and retrieving information in an on-line network” (Ferrel, col. 1, ll. 12-15). FF 6. One aspect of Ferrel’s [I]nvention is, in a computer network, an indexing system of a title having a title layout and content, wherein said title layout includes search objects, each of said title layout, content and search objects having an associated object identifier, and said content having search properties, the system comprising: an index server receiving the title; a catalog database containing tables associating object identifiers with other information including search properties; an index service executing on the index server and accessing the catalog database; and a database server storing index associations between the search properties and object identifiers provided by the index service. (Ferrel, col. 4, ll. 44-56; see Ans. 4 (wherein Examiner finds that Ferrel suggests “an object identifier being provided by the index service”).) FF 7. Ferrel suggests that [A] globally unique identifier (GUID) can be used in OLE object oriented environments to identify an object with a unique string of characters. Normally, unique GUIDs are produced by concatenating the time, date and network card serial number of the computer at the time that the object is created. By using Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 4 this method, it is virtually impossible for two objects to receive the same GUID. Thus, each object in the system can be identified, linked to, retrieved, and so forth by use of the object's GUID. (Ferrel, col. 15, ll. 1-10; see Ans. 4 (wherein Examiner finds that Ferrel suggests “using a combination of the content identifier and the unique bonding identifier to form a globally unique identifier for the content object . . . [by] referring to the generation of a GUID using time, date, and network card serial number”).) FF 8. With reference to Ferrel’s TABLE 3, Examiner finds that Ferrel suggests “associating the globally unique identifier with a metadata source to enable routing of an entity that supplies the globally unique identifier to the metadata source” (Ans. 4). FF 9. Examiner finds that “Ferrel does not appear to explicitly disclose: receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers” and relies on Orleth to make up for this deficiency (id.). FF 10. Orleth suggests that [W]hen a version of driver for a shared peripheral device is initially stored upon the centralized driver store . . . a suitable unique identifier name [may, as an alternative to a “strong name”, be] generated, when the driver is stored, based upon metadata (e.g., a version number, a timestamp, checksum, etc.) extracted from one or more files associated with the particular driver version. (Orleth 2-3: [0028]; see Ans. 4 (where Examiner finds that Orleth suggests “receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers . . . [by] referring to an identifier name being generated based upon metadata (e.g., a version number, a timestamp, checksum, etc.”).) Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 5 ANALYSIS Appellant’s claimed invention requires, inter alia, receiving of a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers and providing a unique bounding identifier for the set of content identifiers, wherein the combination of the content identifier and unique bounding identifier form a globally unique identifier for the content object (see Appellant’s Claims 1, 15, and 16; see also FF 4). Based on the combination of Ferrel and Orleth, Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious to “modif[y] the system of Ferrel with the timestamp-based identifiers from Orleth, because Ferrel discloses the use of generating a GUID by a combination of timestamp and network card serial number” (Ans. 5 (emphasis added); see generally FF 5-10). In this regard, Examiner asserts that “[i]t is a reasonable interpretation of the definition of ‘unique bounding identifiers’ to include the use of the NIC serial number of Ferrel, because of the similarity between such a serial number and the given list of potential bounding identifiers” (Ans. 13). Appellant contends that “Ferrel teaches that the adapter card serial number is concatenated with a time/date to form a unique object identifier called a GUID” (App. Br. 8). In this regard, Appellant contends that The act of concatenating the network card serial number with time/date to generate a GUID does not provide a bounding identifier for the set of content identifiers because the network card serial number is not provided for a set of content identifiers (in other words, time/date data is not a set of content identifiers as claimed). (Id. (emphasis added).) Examiner failed to explain how Ferrel’s unique bounding identifiers, which includes a network card serial number relate to Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 6 Appellant’s requirement for a unique bounding identifier for a set of content identifiers (see Ans. 5 and 13; Cf. Appellant’s claims 1, 15, and 16). Appellant further contends that Orleth fails to make up for this deficiency in Ferrel (id.). In this regard, Appellant contends that “[t]here is no teaching [in Orleth] that th[e] generation of an identifier from extracted metadata [(i.e. information, such as version number, timestamp, checksum, etc., associated with a content object, such as a software driver)] encompasses receiving a content identifier for a content object from a set of content identifiers because there is no indication of a set of content identifiers in” Orleth (id. at 9; FF 3). As Appellant explains, Orleth’s [E]xamples of metadata . . . such as version number, a timestamp, checksum, etc. do not correspond to the set of content identifiers as claimed because these listed items are not taught as a set of content identifiers (instead, it’s only metadata for one driver), and there is no clear teaching that generating an identifier from this metadata includes the act of receiving a content identifier for a content object from a set of content identifiers. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2 (“Orleth’s method of generating an identifier for a software driver from data in its files does not suggest th[e] missing aspect of claim 1 because it is not teaching receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers as claimed”).) While Examiner emphasizes that “the aspect of Ferrel that is intended to read on the claimed ‘content identifiers’ is the time stamp,” Examiner fails to refute Appellant’s contention that a time stamp does “not correspond to the set of content identifiers as [set forth in Appellant’s] claims[s]” (Ans. 13; Cf. App. Br. 9). On balance, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record falls in favor of Appellant. Examiner recognizes that Ferrel fails to suggest Appeal 2011-009471 Application 11/614,921 7 “receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers and relies on Orleth to make up for this deficiency” (FF 9). However, as Appellant explains, the portion of Orleth relied upon by Examiner fails to suggest a set of content identifiers, as required by Appellant’s claims, because the version number, timestamp, checksum, etc. suggested by Orleth “are not taught as a set of content identifiers,” but instead represent “only metadata for one driver” (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2; see FF 9-10). In sum, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a conclusion that the combination of Ferrel and Orleth suggest “receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers” and “providing a unique bounding identifier for the set of content identifiers” as is required by Appellant’s claimed invention. CONCLUSION OF LAW The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to support a conclusion that the combination of Ferrel and Orleth suggest “receiving a content identifier for a content object from among a set of content identifiers” and “providing a unique bounding identifier for the set of content identifiers” as is required by Appellant’s claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ferrel and Orleth is reversed. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation