Ex Parte Petersen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12485082 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

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.
12/485,082 06/16/2009 Steven L. Petersen CT-SOC-005/US (P126) 2552
71739 7590 06/17/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
KUDDUS, DANIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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 STEVEN L. PETERSEN
____________________

Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–9 and 12–21, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 The real party in interest is identified as Waldeck Technology, LLC.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to a music diary processor for
generating an electronic music diary and locating songs and other data
associated with music diaries. (Title; Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative:
1. A method for a music diary processor to generate a first
electronic music diary comprising:
receiving a first plurality of event identifiers from a user
device, wherein each event identifier identifies a respective life
event associated with a life of a first user;
for each of the first plurality of event identifiers, receiving
a first date identifier identifying a date associated with the life
event;
for each of the first plurality of event identifiers, receiving
a first song identifier identifying one or more songs identified by
the first user as being associated with the life event;
generating the first electronic music diary by storing the
first plurality of event identifiers, the first song identifiers, and
the first date identifiers in an electronic storage medium wherein
each first song identifier and each first date identifier is coupled
with at least one respective first event identifier and the first
plurality of event identifiers are coupled with each other;
receiving a request for a second electronic music diary;
identifying the second electronic music diary, wherein the
second electronic music diary is associated with a second user
different from the first user;
providing a second plurality of event identifiers associated
with the second user, wherein each of the second plurality of
event identifiers identifies a respective life event associated with
a life of the second user; and
associating the first electronic music diary with the second
electronic music diary because at least one of the first plurality
of event identifiers is substantially similar to at least one of the
second plurality of event identifiers.
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

3
Rejection
Claims 1–9 and 12–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sharpe et al. (US 2009/0183091 A1; publ. July 16, 2009)
(“Sharpe”) and Strohmenger et al. (US 2009/0157613 A1; publ. June 18,
2009) (“Strohmenger”). (Final Act. 6–15.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 13–26; Reply Br. 3–9). We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions as to claims 1–7, 12–18, and 21.
For these claims, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Answer (see Ans. 2–7, 15–18).
As to claims 8, 9, 19, and 20, we agree with Appellant’s contention
the Examiner has not shown the combination of Sharpe and Strohmenger
teaches “each of the second plurality of event identifiers is coupled to a
second location identifier that identifies a location within a predetermined
distance of the location identified by the first location identifier,” as recited
in each of these claims.
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.

Claims 1–7, 12–18, and 21
Appellant argues Sharpe fails to teach for each of the first plurality of
event identifiers, receiving a first song identifier identifying one or more
songs identified by the first user as being associated with the life event, as
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

4
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 15–18; Reply Br. 4–6.) According to
Appellant, Sharpe at most suggests associating parameters with media items
to be archived, not with an event identifier as required by the claim. (App.
Br. 17.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Sharpe associates a media item with an event
identifier of various event types of party, holiday, dance, show, and school
trip. (Ans. 3, 4, 6 (citing Sharpe ¶¶ 44, 84, 85).)
Appellant acknowledges in the Reply Brief that Sharpe receives an
event identifier for a digital media item, but asserts claim 1 “requires that the
event identifiers be received prior to the song identifier being received.”
(Reply Br. 5.) Appellant contends “Sharpe does not receive a song identifier
for an event identifier” because “Sharpe has the media items prior to
associating any parameters.” (App. Br. 17.) Appellant’s arguments do not
address the Examiner’s specific findings that Sharpe’s event types are pre-
existing event identifiers for which media identifiers are received. (Ans. 6, 8
(citing Sharpe ¶¶ 12, 13).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Sharpe
teaches a predetermined plurality of event types/identifiers; Sharpe further
receives a user-defined identifier for a media item for associating the media
item with an event type from the predetermined plurality. (See Sharpe ¶¶
12, 13.) Thus, Sharpe receives a media identifier for each of a plurality of
event identifiers, as required by claim 1.
Appellant further contends “[t]here is no teaching [in Sharpe] that the
music samples are associated with the life event as recited by the claims”;
rather, Sharpe associates a life event with photographs, not with song
identifiers. (App. Br. 18.) However, Sharpe’s paragraph 29 discloses digital
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

5
media items are music recordings, and paragraphs 12, 13, and 44 disclose
unique identifiers identify digital media items as being associated with a
user-selected life event from a predetermined plurality of event types. (Ans.
3, 6 (citing Sharpe ¶¶ 13, 29, 44).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings
that Sharpe discloses a song identifier identifying a song/music recording
identified by a user as being associated with a life event, as required by
claim 1. (Ans. 3, 6.)
Appellant additionally argues Sharpe and Strohmenger do not teach or
suggest associating the first electronic music diary with the second
electronic music diary because at least one of the first plurality of event
identifiers is substantially similar to at least one of the second plurality of
event identifiers, as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 19–21; Reply Br. 6, 7.)
According to Appellant, Strohmenger’s “matching users with communities
or other users such as users traveling to the same destination” is not
“matching of any media items to each other” and associating diaries, and
Sharpe’s disclosure similarly fails to teach the claimed associating. (App.
Br. 19.)
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because Appellant
improperly attacks Sharpe and Strohmenger individually where the rejection
is based on a combination of Sharpe and Strohmenger. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Sharpe’s
“copying of media items between group archives and/or group workspaces”
for the claimed associating music diaries (see Sharpe ¶ 87), and relies on
Strohmenger’s matching of similar travelers’ profiles and music for the
claimed associating based on a substantial similarity, as required by claim 1.
(Ans. 4–6; Final Act. 8–10 (citing Sharpe ¶¶ 87, 90; Strohmenger ¶¶ 28, 31,
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

6
32, 34).) The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to facilitate
communication between users having similar travel and music interests by
applying Strohmenger’s profile matching to Sharpe’s exchange of archived
media items between user-defined groups, which allows users to view, track
or match their event related data, such as travel and music data. (Ans. 15–
17; Final Act. 9, 10 (citing Strohmenger ¶¶ 5, 32).) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning.
Appellant further contends the Examiner’s combination of Sharpe and
Strohmenger is improper because Strohmenger’s “[m]atching users to
groups and [Sharpe’s] archiving media items are not in the same field of
endeavor,” and one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the references. (App. Br. 19, 20.) The Examiner, however, has
provided sufficient articulation for combining Sharpe and Strohmenger,
which is not persuasively rebutted by Appellant. (See Ans. 16–18; Final
Act. 9, 10.) We also agree with the Examiner that Sharpe and Strohmenger
are in the same field of endeavor as that disclosed and claimed by Appellant,
or reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved by Appellant. (Ans. 16,
17; Final Act. 9.) In particular, Sharpe and Strohmenger both relate to
identifying events or interests shared by a group of users. (See Sharpe ¶¶ 29,
36, 37, 79; Strohmenger Abstract, ¶ 34.) Appellant has not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s reasonable findings.
Appellant also argues Sharpe and Strohmenger cannot be combined to
reach the claimed subject matter because it is unclear how Strohmenger’s
functionality would improve Sharpe’s archiving of data by the user. (App.
Br. 20.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner
has provided sufficient articulation of the rational underpinning for
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

7
combining Strohmenger’s traveler profile matching with Sharpe’s exchange
of archived media items between user groups. (Ans. 16–18.) Strohmenger
need not specifically disclose that its profile matching improves Sharpe’s
media archiving in order for it to have been obvious to enhance Sharpe’s
exchange of archived media using Strohmenger’s matching. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sharpe and Strohmenger. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of independent claims 12 and 21 and dependent claims 2–7 and
13–18, which Appellant does not argue separately (App. Br. 14, 21).

Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites each of the second plurality
of event identifiers is coupled to a second location identifier that identifies a
location within a predetermined distance of the location identified by the
first location identifier. Claim 9, depending from claim 1, and claims 19 and
20, depending from claim 12, recite a similar limitation. The Examiner finds
Sharpe teaches a second location identifier identifying a location within a
predetermined distance of a location identified by a first location identifier
because Sharpe retrieves media items related to meetings and school trips’
locations. (Ans. 8, 11, 12 (citing Sharpe ¶¶ 9, 11, 36, 44); Final Act. 13, 14
Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

8
(citing Sharpe ¶¶ 5, 9, 12, 45, 82).) The Examiner also finds Strohmenger
teaches a second location identifier identifying a location within a
predetermined distance of a location identified by a first location identifier
because Strohmenger matches travelers based on a travel destination, such as
Paris. (Ans. 10, 14, 15 (citing Strohmenger ¶¶ 27, 28, 31).)
Appellant argues neither Sharpe nor Strohmenger discloses a second
identifier’s location within a predetermined distance of a first identifier’s
location, but merely disclose lists of personal events and stored data
locations. (App. Br. 23, 25; Reply Br. 8–9.) We agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has not shown that Sharpe or Strohmenger teaches the claimed
identifiers’ locations within a predetermined distance as required by each of
claims 8, 9, 19, and 20. The cited portions of Sharpe disclose events such as
meetings, school trips, and holidays (see Sharpe ¶¶ 11, 36, 44), but do not
address a predetermined distance of an identified location or event, and do
not teach identifying a location within a predetermined distance of an
event’s location. The cited portions of Strohmenger teach matching
travelers based on a travel destination (see Strohmenger ¶¶ 27, 31), but do
not teach a location identifier identifying a location within a predetermined
distance of a travel location.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the references teach or make obvious the claimed
second location identifier that identifies a location within a predetermined
distance of a location identified by the first location identifier, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sharpe and Strohmenger.

Appeal 2014-008314
Application 12/485,082

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 12–18, and 21 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 is reversed.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART