Ex Parte Petrovic et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201613324276 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/324,276 12/13/2011 Rade Petrovic 97075 7590 06/29/2016 Perkins Coie LLP - SDO General PO Box 1247 Seattle, WA 98111-1247 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. 077058-8037.USOO 2230 EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RADE PETROVIC, JIAN ZHAO, and JOSEPH M. WINOGRAD Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 Technology Center 2400 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-29, 32--41 and 44--59, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 1 The Examiner does not use Alattar (US 6,801,999 Bl; Oct. 5, 2004) for rejecting any claims. See Ans. 7. Therefore, we do not consider Appellants' arguments regarding Alattar (App. Br. 33-36; Reply Br. 33-36). Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to content management. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of embedding watermarks into a host content, compnsmg: obtaining a payload of a first watermark message for embedding into the host content; obtaining a payload of a second watermark message that is different from the payload of the first watermark message for embedding into the host content; and embedding the first and the second watermark messages into the host content in a coordinated fashion such that the embedded first watermark message has a pre-defined relationship with the embedded second watermark message in a particular domain, wherein embedded symbols of the first watermark message are substantially non-overlapping with embedded symbols of the second watermark message in the particular domain, wherein the symbols of the first watermark message are embedded in interleaved embedding opportunities with respect to the symbols of the second watermark message in the particular domain, and wherein the pre-defined relationship comprises a ratio of the interleaved embedding opportunities allocated to the symbols of the first watermark message with respect to the symbols of the second watermark message, the ratio selected to achieve a particular watermark extraction reliability of the first watermark messages. References and Rejections Hars US 2002/0068987 Al June 6, 2002 Jones US 2003/0016825 Al Jan.23,2003 Venkatesan US 6,801,999 Bl Oct. 5, 2004 Brundage US 2004/0258274 Al Dec. 23, 2004 Homing US 2007/0234070 Al Oct. 4. 2007 2 Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-14, 24--26, 29, 32, 34--39, 52, 53, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Venkatesan. Claims 4--5 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesan and Brundage. Claims 10 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesan and Homing. Claims 15, 16, 19, 20, 40, 41, 44, 45, 49-51, 54, 55, 58, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesan and Hars. Claims 21-23 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesan, Hars, and Jones. ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection \Ve have reviev,red the Examiner's rejection in light of 1A .. ppellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Venkatesan discloses "wherein the symbols of the first watermark message are embedded in interleaved embedding opportunities with respect to the symbols of the second watermark message in the particular domain," as recited in independent claim 1.2 See App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 13-16, 38. The Examiner cites Venkatesan's Column 27, lines 20-39, for the disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 2---6. In the Response, the Examiner also cites Venkatesan's Column 38, lines 46-52, 2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 but does not specifically use that to map the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 2. Inherency can only be established when "prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The cited Venkatesan portions do not discuss interleaving, let alone the claim limitation "the symbols of the first watermark message are embedded in interleaved embedding opportunities with respect to the symbols of the second watermark message in the particular domain." Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the cited Venkatesan portions do not explicitly or necessarily disclose the disputed claim limitation. See App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 13-16, 38. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11-14, 52, and 53. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 24, 38, and 39, which recite limitations similar to the disputed claim limitation, and corresponding dependent claims 25, 26, 29, 32, 34--37, 56, and 57. The Obviousness Rejections The Examiner cites additional references for the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 27, 28, and 33, which depend from claims 1 and 24. The Examiner relies on V enkatesan in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 1, and does not rely on the additional references in any 4 Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 manner that remedies the deficiencies of the underlying anticipation rejection. See Final Act. 7-8. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 27, 28, and 33. We also reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 15, 16, 19-23, 40, 41, 44--51, 54, 55, 58, and 59, all of which recite limitations similar to the disputed claim limitation of claim 1 (collectively, "Disputed Claim Limitations"). For example, claim 15 recites "the symbols of the first watermark message having been embedded in interleaved watermark embedding opportunities with respect to the symbols of the second watermark message in the particular domain." Similar to the mapping of claim 1, the Examiner cites Venkatesan's Column 27, lines 20-39 for the Disputed Claim Limitations. See Final Act. 8. In the Response, the Examiner also cites Venkatesan's Column 38, lines 46-52, but does not specifically use that to map the Disputed Claim Limitations. See Ans. 2. Similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 1, the cited V enkatesan portions do not discuss interleaving, let alone the Disputed Claim limitations. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the cited Venkatesan portions do not teach the Disputed Claim Limitations. See App. Br. 13-16, 29-30; Reply Br. 13-16, 29-30, and 38. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 15, 16, 19-23, 40, 41, 44--51, 54, 55, 58, and 59. 5 Appeal2014--005149 Application 13/324,276 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 9-16, 19- 29, 32--41 and 44--59. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation