Ex Parte Logan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2014

10869095 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BETH TERESA LOGAN and DAVID MARK FROHLICH
____________________

Appeal 2012-009894
Application 10/869,095
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009894
Application 10/869,095

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–7 and 9–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving at least one audio search criterion;
determining a target audio profile based on the audio
search criterion; and
retrieving one or more images from a set of images,
wherein each of the images in the set is associated with a
respective audio clip and, for each of the images in the set, the
retrieving comprises comparing the target audio profile with a
respective audio clip profile characterizing the audio clip
respectively associated with the image;
wherein the receiving, the determining, and the retrieving
are performed by a computer.

Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 and 9–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Ainsworth (US 2004/0122539 A1; published June
24, 2004).
Appeal 2012-009894
Application 10/869,095

3
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–7
and 9–24 because:
[N]one of the images that are selected by Ainsworth's software
system is associated with a respective audio clip, these images
cannot possibly be selected based on a comparison of a "target
audio profile with a respective audio clip profile characterizing
the audio clip respectively associated with the image."
(App. Br. 6.) Further:
[T]he Examiner merely has shown that Ainsworth image
selection process involves analyzing an audio track for audio
criteria (such as artist, genre, rhythm type, track duration,
musical instrument inclusion, copyright date, date of loading
the audio track into memory 126, or the owner of the audio
track; see ¶ 64), using the audio criteria to select predetermined
mappings of image characteristics to audio characteristics, and
comparing the selected predetermined audio-to-image
mappings with image analysis output (e.g., image containing a
beach, party, or vacation; see ¶ 73) to select the images that
"fit." The comparison of predetermined mappings between
image characteristics and audio characteristics with audio
characteristics of an audio track does not constitute "comparing
the target audio profile with a respective audio clip profile
characterizing the audio clip respectively associated with the
image" because the predetermined mappings do not
characterize an audio clip respectively associated with the
image. Indeed, at this stage of the image selection process, the
image has not been selected and therefore the audio track has
not been associated with the image.
(App. Br. 8.)(emphasis added).

Appeal 2012-009894
Application 10/869,095

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–24 as being
anticipated because Ainsworth fails to disclose the argued determining
limitation?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above specifically cited contention.
The Examiner has erred in finding that Ainsworth anticipates the claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–7 and 9–24 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) On this record, claims 1–7 and 9–24 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–24 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj