Ex Parte Purang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2014

11435633 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014)

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.
11/435,633 05/16/2006 Khemdut Purang 080398.P653 6347
8791 7590 02/25/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
PHAN, TUANKHANH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2014 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 KHEMDUT PURANG and MARK PLUTOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2011-008606
Application 11/435,633
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008606
Application 11/435,633

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-26.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for presenting to
a user a multimedia object sorted by similarity (see Spec. ¶ [0034]).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computerized method comprising:
receiving a second multimedia object;
mapping, by an automatic recommendation computer, a
current piece of metadata included in the second multimedia
object in a second multimedia medium to a modified piece of
metadata using similarity data, wherein the modified piece of
metadata is similar to the current piece of metadata and the
metadata comprises category data and the similarity data
includes a list of modifications to the current piece of metadata
that are considered similar;
searching a first multimedia medium for a first
multimedia object using the modified piece of metadata,
wherein the first and second multimedia mediums are different
types of multimedia.

1 Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-008606
Application 11/435,633

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arrouye (US 2007/0005581 A1; Jan. 4,
2007) and Morris (US 2006/0112141 A1; May 25, 2006). (See Ans. 3-5).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Arrouye and Morris, the
Examiner finds that Arrouye discloses all the claimed features except for “a
modified piece of metadata using similarity data,” for which the Examiner
further relies on Morris (see Ans. 3-4).
Appellants argue that the disclosure in Arrouye related to the
filenames, which are the search results, does not meet the claimed similarity
data used to modify the metadata (App. Br. 6). With respect to Morris,
Appellants contend that while modifying metadata is disclosed in the
reference, no discussion is provided for using similarity data or any
mechanism for metadata modification (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner responds by pointing to the categories 1511 and 1513
in Arrouye for teaching the claimed mapping a piece of metadata from one
multimedia object to another (Ans. 7). The Examiner further explains that
paragraphs 26, 31, 33, 34, and 44 of Morris were relied on for teaching
modified metadata using similarity data, to which a current piece of
metadata is mapped (id.).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions. Contrary to the Examiner’s
position in response to Appellants’ arguments stated above, while the cited
portions of Morris disclose the user modification to metadata, nowhere in
the reference is using similarity data discussed. In other words, Morris
Appeal 2011-008606
Application 11/435,633

4
neither discusses “mapping . . . a current piece of metadata . . . to a modified
piece of metadata,” nor provides any teaching or suggestion as to how to
modify the metadata, i.e., by using similarity data.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, as well as independent claims 7, 13, and 17, which recite similar
limitations, over the combination of Arrouye and Morris. Therefore, the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-26 cannot be
sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-26
is reversed.

REVERSED

bab