11707328 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2014)

Ex Parte Macchletti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2014

11707328 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 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. 11/707,328 02/14/2007 Alessandra Macchletti 10022-966 7163 28164 7590 05/23/2014 BGL/Accenture - Chicago BRINKS GILSON & LIONE P O BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER MACKES, KRIS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2014 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 ALESSANDRA MACCHLETTI and KARIM EL HAFFAR ___________ Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a digital asset management data model that supports both the creation and management of multiple levels of granularity or metadata enrichment, as well as, different sets of file types or renditions used throughout digital asset processing life-cycle. Abstract. Representative Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A digital asset management system comprising: a communication interface; a digital asset management database comprising: an asset description hierarchy comprising asset description objects comprising attributes relating a media asset to corresponding media asset data, media asset metadata, enriched media asset data, and enriched media asset metadata; a compound media asset type description hierarchy comprising compound media asset type description objects comprising metadata attributes that associate compound media types to the media asset; a compound media asset type file hierarchy comprising compound media asset type file objects comprising: media asset data attributes and media asset metadata attributes that associate a media asset data file to the compound media types; and media asset files comprising physical data representations of renderings associated Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 3 with the compound media types; a memory comprising: an ingestion program operable to: obtain the media asset data and the media asset metadata for the media asset through the communication interface; separately obtain additional media asset data and additional media asset metadata, not originally obtained for the media asset, through the communication interface; ingest the media asset data and the media asset metadata by: normalizing the media asset data and media asset metadata with respect to a defined object format by populating: the asset description objects; at least one of the compound media asset type description objects; and at least one of the compound media asset type file objects; and enriching both the media asset data and the media asset metadata by creating the enriched media asset data and the enriched media asset metadata by augmenting the media asset data and the media asset metadata with the additional media asset data and the additional media asset metadata not originally obtained for the media asset; a processor coupled to the communication interface, database and the memory, and operable to execute the ingestion program. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Getty (WIPO Publication Number 2006/108162 A2; published October 12, 2006) and Martinez (US Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0083380 A1; published April 12, 2007). Answer 3-14. Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 4 Claims 4-8, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Getty, Martinez, and Marsh (US Patent Number 7,073,193 B2; issued July 4, 2006). Answer 14-21. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 17, 2010) and the Answer (mailed February 7, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants contend Getty fails to disclose the enrichment of both the asset data and asset metadata as claimed in claim 1. Appeal Brief 5. Appellants further contend Martinez does not cure Getty’s deficiency because Martinez only teaches combining existing metadata subsets to form composite media and does not disclose combing additional media asset data and metadata “not originally obtained for the media asset” with asset data and metadata to form composite media as claimed. Id. at 5-6. The Examiner finds: While the metadata subsets of Martinez may already exist for their media items (media asset data), the claim limitation does not require that an item’s metadata (the media asset metadata) not be in existence prior to enrichment. The claim merely states that the additional media asset data and additional media asset metadata are not originally obtained for the media asset. Answer 22. We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation that the claim does not require the additional media asset data and metadata to “not be in existence” (id.) prior to the claimed enrichment. However, claim 1 requires Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 5 enriching both the media asset data and metadata by augmenting with additional data “not originally obtained for the media asset.” The claim 1 limitation “not originally obtained” only indicates that the additional data used to enrich the original data was not obtained at the same time as the original data. Martinez discloses “a composite media item (not shown) can be created from the media item portions 805, 806, and the new metadata 809 is associated with this new composite media item.” Martinez [0088]; Figures 8a, 8b (elements 801-806). Therefore, Martinez discloses enriching the original data with additional data. In Martinez, there is no indication that the data used to enrich the original data was obtained at the same time as the original data. Claim 1 does not preclude enriching the original data with data that was not obtained at the same time as the original data. Subsequently, Appellants’ argument that Martinez does not disclose combining additional media asset data and metadata with asset data and metadata not originally obtained for the media asset is not persuasive for reasons articulated above. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 11, as well as independent 16 for the reasons articulated above because both independent claims are commensurate in scope with claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 12- 15, and 17-20, not separately argued, for the reasons articulated above. 1 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider if independent claim 16 should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claim 16 recites “a computer readable memory comprising Footnote continued on the next page. Appeal 2011-008905 Application 11/707,328 6 DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Tc processor executable instructions encoded on the medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “machine-readable storage” language of independent claim 16, when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, is inclusive of transitory propagating signals. Spec. [053]; See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).