Ex Parte Prince

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2013

11054701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

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.
11/054,701 02/08/2005 John Prince 10587.0215-01000 5722
100692 7590 01/31/2013
AOL Inc./Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2013 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 JOHN PRINCE
____________

Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 23-41. Claims 1-22
were canceled. (App. Br. 3). Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
This invention relates to relates to computer related information
search and retrieval with multimedia and streaming media metadata
databases. (Spec. 1). Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
23. A computer-implemented method performed by a
computer system to assess the quality of metadata associated
with a media stream on a communications network, the method
comprising:
[a] extracting metadata associated with the media stream;
[b] parsing the extracted metadata into at least one metadata
field, the extracted metadata in the metadata field comprising a
set of keywords, the set of keywords comprising at least one
keyword;
[c] providing a valid database comprising authoritative
metadata represented as a plurality of database records, each of
the database records comprising a plurality of record fields,
each of the record fields comprising a set of keywords, the set
of keywords comprising at least one keyword;
[d] comparing the contents of the at least one metadata field
to the contents of each of the record fields to identify a
matching record field that contains all of the keywords
contained in the at least one metadata field; and
[e] determining a similarity score based on the degree of
similarity between the metadata field and the matching record
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
3
field, wherein the similarity score is indicative of the quality of
the extracted metadata,
[f] wherein code implementing the method is stored in memory
of the computer system for execution by a processor of the
computer system.
(Disputed limitations emphasized).

REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 23-24, 26-31, 33-35, and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal ( U.S. Patent No.
6,484,199 B2) and Vaithilingam (U.S. Patent No. 6,411,724 B1).
R2. Claims 25, 32, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eyal, Vaithilingam, and Nashed (U.S. Patent No.
6,654,749 B1).
R3. Claims 36, 37 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Eyal, Vaithilingam, and Williams (U.S. Patent
App. Publication No. 2002-0002541 A1).

PRIOR DECISION
Ex parte Abajian, Appeal No. 2009-004233, (Application No.
10/886,946). BPAI Decision mailed Oct. 15, 2009. (Examiner Reversed).

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
4
taken, and (2), the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Appellant's Appeal Brief. (Ans. 12-15). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.

R1.
A.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"determining a similarity score based on the degree of similarity between the
metadata field and the matching record field, wherein the similarity score is
indicative of the quality of the extracted metadata," within the meaning of
claim 23 and the commensurate language of claim 30?

Appellant contends:
Vaithilingam's system extracts descriptors from the query
image and compares them with descriptors of the other images
in the repository to determine the matches. Vaithilingam, col. 4,
lines 13-20. The matching images are ranked for similarity with
the query image. Vaithilingam, col. 9, lines 24-26. . . .
Vaithilingam does not rank, or otherwise evaluate, the query
image (alleged "extracted metadata"). Instead, Vaithilingam
only ranks the matched images, which indicates nothing about
the descriptors of the query image.
(Reply Br. 2).

Vaithilingam teaches:
A comparison (step 135) is then made between the query
descriptor and the descriptor for the repository multimedia
information item. . . . The comparison is repeated for all
clusters in the database (step 136-NO), and the set of closest
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
5
matches [between query descriptor and the descriptor for the
repository multimedia information item] from each cluster is
appropriately ranked, with suitable means being well known in
the art, and displayed to the user (step 137).
(Vaithilingam col. 9, ll. 19-27)
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive. Specifically, we are not
persuaded by Appellant's contention that "Vaithilingam only ranks the match
images, which indicates nothing about the descriptors of the query image,"
because Appellant misinterprets Vaithilingam. (Reply Br. 2). Vaithilingam
teaches determining the closest matches of the extracted descriptors from the
query image to the descriptors of the other images in the repository. (Col. 9,
ll. 19-22, 24-27; see Fig 2). In particular, Vaithilingam teaches that "the set
of closest matches [between query descriptor and the descriptor for the
repository multimedia information item] from each cluster is appropriately
ranked." (Vaithilingam col 9, ll. 26-27; see Fig. 2, 135; Abstract). (See Ans.
13). Therefore, we find Vaithilingam would have taught or suggested
ranking (scoring) the descriptors (metadata) of the multi-media. (Id.).
Furthermore, contrary to Appellant's contentions (App. Br. 11), we
agree with the Examiner that Vaithilingam's "determining the similarity of
the metadata-descriptor[s] and ranking the closest matches" would have
taught or suggested the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation
of "determining a similarity score indicative of the quality of the extracted
metadata" (Ans. 13), because the higher the Vaithilingam's similarity, the
more accurate the extracted query descriptor ("extracted metadata"). For
example, if the extracted query descriptor is gibberish (low quality), the
similarity score/ranking would be low.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
6
B.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in combining the cited
references relied upon in the rejection of claims 23 and 30?
Appellant contends that "Eyal discredits user-based searching systems
like Vaithilingam's retrieval system. According to Eyal, such systems
provide, at best, a 'stop-and-go experience.' (Eyal 8:61-9:4)." (App. Br. 12-
13).
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive because Appellant does not
present evidence that Vaithilingam teaches any of the "stop-go-experience"
described in the quoted section of Eyal (App. Br. 12-13). Moreover, the test
is whether the reference(s) teach away from Appellant’s claimed invention.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that Eyal (or Vaithilingam)
teaches away from Appellant’s claimed invention.
Appellant also contends that there is "no reason to combine Eyal and
Vaithilingam." (App. Br. 11-12; 16-17).
Notwithstanding Appellant’s arguments, the Supreme Court guides
that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Here, Eyal (col. 6, ll. 1-10; col. 12, ll. 33-63; col. 14, l. 61 - col. 5, l.
16; col. 22, ll. 8-58; Fig. 3) teaches or suggests extracting and parsing
metadata from a media stream on a computer (corresponding to claim 23
steps [a], [b], [f]), and Vaithilingam (Fig. 2; col. 7, ll. 38-56; Fig. 2 elements
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
7
135, 137; col. 2, l. 62 - col. 3, l. 4) teaches or suggests: providing a valid
database (corresponding to claim 23, step [c]), comparing metadata fields
(claim 23, step [d]), and determining a similarity score ((claim 23, step [e]).
We are of the view that these are known elements, with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform, and thus yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement. (See KSR at 417; Ans. 3-5).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.

C.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"[c] providing a valid database comprising authoritative metadata . . . ,"
within the meaning of claim 23 and the commensurate language of claim
30?
Appellant contends:
The Examiner appears to suggest that Vaithilingam's reference
to "any type of database" implies that Vaithilingam's database
may be a valid database. Appellant disagrees and submits that
the type of database does not determine whether the database is
a valid database. A valid database is a "database [that]
comprises valid or authoritative metadata" such that "metadata,
which may be inaccurate or noisy, can be replaced with
accurate metadata obtained from a valid (ground truth)
database" (see, e.g., Appellant's Published Application No.
2005-0193014 , ¶¶ [0042], [0045]-[0046]).
(App. Br. 9; emphasis added).
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive because Appellant fails to
cite definitions of "valid database," and "authoritative metadata" in the
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
8
Specification.1 Appellant's quoted section above does not cite to definitions
of a valid database," and "authoritative metadata" because the quoted section
describes actions on "metadata" and does not recite any definition of
"authoritative metadata." (App. Br. 9). 2
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection R1 of claim 23 and of claim 30, which
has commensurate limitations.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection R1 of remaining claims 23-
24, 26-31, 33-35, and 41, which Appellant merely argues are patentable by
virtue of their dependence from their patent claims. (App. Br. 13, 18).

R2 AND R3.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 25, 32, and 38, and
rejection R3 of claims 36-37 and 39-40, which Appellant contends are
patentable by virtue of their dependence from their patent claims and for

1 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.").
2 "During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). A basic canon of claim
construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the
written description. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appeal 2010-008621
Application 11/054,701
9
which Appellant does not make contentions that rebut the Examiner's
rejection of the claims and their parent claims 23 and 30. (App. Br. 19).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections R1-R3 of claims 23-41 under
§ 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh