Ex Parte MorotomiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201714156755 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) 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. 1946-0607B 9707 EXAMINER PARCHER, DANIEL W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 14/156,755 01/16/2014 60803 7590 06/01/2017 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Shiro MOROTOMI 06/01/2017 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 SHIRO MOROTOMI Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,7551 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 16, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Apr. 6, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 30, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 2, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 3, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method, system, and recording medium for exchanging information between user communication terminals. Spec. 110:14—19; Title; Abstract. The information may include a user’s disclosable playlists that can be broadcasted to other users. Spec. Ill: 1—3. Claims 1, 5, 9, 18, and 25 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An information storage system comprising: circuitry configured to store user identification information of a plurality of users; receive, from at least one user of the plurality of users, a plurality of playlists each indicating a plurality of content data; identify the plurality of playlists of a selected user selected from among the plurality of users and generate data for display of a list of the plurality of playlists of the selected user at a first display location together with a name of the selected user at a second display location spatially related to the first display location; and obtain information of the plurality of the content data in a selected playlist and generate data for display of a list of information of the plurality of the content data in the selected playlist, when one playlist of the plurality of playlists is selected from the list of the plurality of playlists as the selected playlist. (App. Br. 23.) 2 Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 REJECTIONS3 & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1—9, 13—18, and 22—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Khedouri (US 2006/0008256 Al, Jan. 12, 2006) and Torres (US 2006/0095976 Al, May 4, 2006). (Final Act. 3-16.) (2) Claims 10—12 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Khedouri, Torres, and Dwek (US 2001/0018858 Al, Sept. 6, 2001). (Final Act. 16-19.) ANALYSIS Appellant acknowledges independent claim 1 recites a list of a selected user’s playlists displayed at a first display location together with the user’s name displayed at a second display location spatially related to the first display location. (App. Br. 15—16.) Specifically, claim 1 recites circuitry configured to “generate data for display of a list of the plurality of playlists of the selected user at a first display location together with a name of the selected user at a second display location spatially related to the first display location.” The Examiner finds Khedouri displays a list of a user’s playlists at a first display location, and Torres displays a user’s playlist and the user’s name together, at spatially related first and second locations on a display. (Final Act. 4 (citing Khedouri || 14, 60, 71, 85, 113; Torres 45, 48, Figs. 1-2B); Ans. 3-4.) Appellant contends 3 Claims 1, 5, 9, 18, and 25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final Act. 2—3.) However, this rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Advisory Action (mailed June 15, 2016), and is no longer pending on appeal. (Advisory Act. 1.) 3 Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 [tjhere is absolutely no indication in Torres that the singular list of songs taught in Figure 1 (as part of a general summary module) would teach or suggest to generate data for display of a list of a plurality of playlists of a selected user at a first display location together with a name of the selected user at a second display location spatially related to the first display location, as recited by at least independent claim 1. (App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).) In this regard, we note Appellant improperly attacks Torres individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references, in which the Examiner relied on Khedouri, not Torres, for display of a list of a plurality ofplaylists of a selected user at a first display location. (Ans. 3 (citing Khedouri || 60, 71, 85); Final Act. 4.) “[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 85 of Khedouri teaches generating data for display of a list of a plurality of playlists of a selected user (Jack) at a first display location (on Jill’s player). (See Khedouri | 85 (“Device 709 [Jill’s player] enables the user to select one or more other user devices (701-708) and browse files and playlists available on those devices, e.g., 706 [Jack’s player] would show 50 available selections and 2 playlists,” and “[d]evice 709 [Jill’s player] also compiles a list of all media files and playlists available on all other available devices in one list and enables the user to search and browse the list” (emphasis added)).) Appellant also argues although Torres discloses “that the user name is displayed together with the singular list of songs,” “merely ‘being on the same display’ cannot satisfy the recited claim elements to both display 4 Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 playlists ‘together with a name ’ and in ‘spatially related’ locations,’ '’ as claimed. (App. Br. 19-20 (emphasis added).) Appellant contends the Specification, drawings, and claim 1 indicate the claimed “recitation of being ‘spatially related’ connotes more than merely being displayed on the same screen.” (Reply Br. 5—6.) We remain unpersuaded because Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which only requires displaying the list and the user’s name “together” at “spatially related” locations. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). At the same time, care must be exercised not to import limitations into the claims or to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In reZletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). We find Appellant’s Specification does not provide an explicit and exclusive definition of the claimed term “spatially related.” Rather, the Specification merely provides a non-limiting example of a playlists’ list and user’s name displayed “together” at “spatially related” locations shown in Figure 31, where the user’s name (“User B”) and Playlists’ Names are displayed in demarcated separated regions on the same display screen 701. (Ans. 6 (citing Spec. Fig. 31); see also Spec. 15:23—24, 111:6—24 (describing Fig. 31); App. Br. 7 (referring to Fig. 31 in support of claim 1).) Based on Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner has broadly interpreted displaying items “together” at “spatially related” locations as encompassing Torres’ displaying user’s name (Leslie) at a top display 5 Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 location, and displaying song playlist 151 at a lower display location in a demarcated separated region below the user’s name. (Ans. 4—6 (citing Torres Fig. 1).) We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with Appellant’s Specification. Appellant next argues the display name “Leslie” in Torres’ Fig. 1 is “merely an identifier o/[Torres’] general summary module,” not a user’s name with “an actual spatial relationship” with Torres’ singular list of songs. (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).) Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Torres teaches “Leslie” is the user’s nickname and identifies the owner of the displayed song information. (Ans. 5 (citing Torres 148, Figs. 1, 2A—2B).) Additionally, Khedouri discloses “device 709 [Jill’s player] identifies the name given to each device, (e.g., ‘ Jack’s player’ 706). . . [and] displays a list of available devices to the user by listing the names of each player” also suggesting a user’s name and playlists are displayed together. (See Khedouri | 85 (emphasis added).) Appellant further argues “there is no teaching or suggestion in Khedouri or Torres, taken alone or in combination, to display a list o f a plurality of playlists as particularly recited at a first display location and a name at a second display location spatially related to the first display location.” (App. Br. 17.) As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that (1) Khedouri displays a playlists’ list at a first display location (|| 60, 71, 85), and (2) Torres displays a playlist at a first display location together with a name at a second display location spatially related to the first display location (|| 45, 48). Additionally, the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning with “rational underpinnings”—which Appellant does not address—for displaying Khedouri’s playlists’ list with the user’s name as 6 Appeal 2017-003586 Application 14/156,755 taught by Torres “to enable users to more easily associate content with trusted users.” (Ans. 3 (citing Torres 113); Final Act. 5.) For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 5, 9, 18, and 25 on the same basis as claim 1 (see App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 6), for the reasons stated above. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2-4, 6—8, 13—17, and 22—24. (Id.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 18, we sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to dependent claims 10—12 and 19—21, Appellant provides substantially the same arguments as for claims 1, 9, and 18, and additionally argues that Dwek does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Khedouri and Torres. (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7.) Because we find Khedouri and Torres are not deficient, Dwek is not needed to cover any deficiency, and therefore we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10-12 and 19—21 for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation