Ex Parte Nurmi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

12708324 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121708,324 02/18/2010
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
11/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikko NURMI
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P3815USOO 4235
EXAMINER
ALATA,AYOUB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO NURMI
Appeal2015-006780
Application 12/708,324
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. \VINSOR, 1\1ICHAEL J. STF~AUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006780
Application 12/708,324
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 5 and 14 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to preventing unauthorized use of media
items. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining context information associated with a user of
a privacy service, the context information including at least one
of date, time, and location, and being linked with one or more
features associated with two or more media items associated with
the user of the privacy service;
matching with one or more processors, at least in part, the
determined context information against metadata associated with
the two or more media items to obtain a prioritized set of the two
or more media items;
searching the prioritized set of the two or more media
items to identify the one or more features associated with the user
of the privacy service;
determining with the one or more processors whether the
identified one or more features are registered with the privacy
service; and
based on a result of the step of determining, applying with
the one or more processors one or more privacy rules on each
media item of the prioritized set of the two or more media items
in which the one or more features is identified.
2
Appeal2015-006780
Application 12/708,324
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Karaoguz et al. ("Karaoguz")
Bellwood et al. ("Bellwood")
US 2009/0138930 Al May 28, 2009
US 2009/0217344 Al Aug. 27, 2009
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bellwood and Karaoguz. Final Act. 5-
10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Bellwood and Karaoguz. We agree with
Appellant's conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
The Examiner finds filtering based on a person's predicted or actual
location performed by Bellwood's DRM relaxing controller teaches or
suggests context information associated with two or more media items,
which are then searched to identify features associated with a user of a
privacy service. See Ans. 4-5; Final Act. 5---6. Appellant contends,
[Bellwood's] captured content rights controller (CCRC) clearly
begins applying its DRM prior to any filtering of the captured
content. Thus, the location information cannot be used until after
an object/element has been determined to be within captured
content, not for use in obtaining a prioritized set of media items
from which to identify the object/element.
App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues Bellwood applies DRM to each
captured content individually instead of "the use of multiple media items in
creating a prioritized listing," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 12.
3
Appeal2015-006780
Application 12/708,324
\Ve agree with Appellant. Although the Examiner directs attention to
paragraph 84 of Bellwood for "suggest[ing] that the location [(i.e., context
information)] is determined in order to perform further filtering" (Ans. 5),
the filtering is part of the DRM process (i.e., the searching step of claim 1 ),
not as part of a precursor step as recited by Appellant's matching step so as
to obtain a prioritized set of two or more media items, which are then
searched. See Bellwood i-fi-1 81, 82, and 84. Accordingly, we agree with
Appellant the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and, for the
same reasons, in rejecting independent claims 10 and 19, which include
similar limitations.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bellwood and Karaoguz and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 10 and 19, which include substantially the
same limitations, and the rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-
18, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-13, and
15-20.
REVERSED
4