Ex Parte Richards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2012

11104219 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SAM RICHARDS, REID HARTENBOWER,
ROB BREDOW, and CHRIS JUEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a computer-implemented method and
system for managing scheduling for media assets in media production (Spec.
2, ll. 2-4).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for tracking and
managing media assets in media production, comprising:
receiving a list of media assets;
determining asset information for the list of media assets,
wherein the asset information includes current task,
detailed information about the current task, and revisions made
to the current task, and
wherein the asset information is determined by a
computer-implemented management tool;
tracking the status of the asset information including
tracking changes that are being made to a media asset when
corrections to be made are identified; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed September 8, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
October 15, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219

3
correcting the asset using an arc of corrections and
approvals needed to correct the identified corrections using a
computer-implemented revision interface tool.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Wurtzel (US 2005/0187806 A1, pub. Aug. 25, 2005).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wurtzel in view of admitted prior art.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Wurtzel does not disclose “tracking the status of
the asset information including tracking changes that are being made to a
media asset when corrections to be made are identified,” as recited in
claim 1. Appellants argue that because Wurtzel discloses an asset manager
that tracks the progress of assets and a separate revision manager that
manages tasks related to revisions, Wurtzel does not disclose real-time
tracking of the status of asset information including tracking changes to the
asset at the time corrections to be made are identified (App. Br. 6-8 and
Reply Br. 3-5). We disagree.
Wurtzel discloses a management and tracking system, and describes
that the system includes real-time production management and tracking
(Wurtzel, para. [0159]). Wurtzel describes that once an asset has been
defined, the various tasks required to create the asset are assigned to
Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219

4
individuals or groups (Wurtzel, para. [0163]). A revision manager for a
particular project is shown in Figure 34, and Wurtzel describes that the
revision manager tracks and displays information regarding “the project, the
task, the task stage, the job, who requested the revision, when the revision
was requested, and what is the status of the revision” (Wurtzel, para.
[0201]). The revision manager thus tracks the status of an asset (i.e., the
tasks required to create the asset), including changes to the asset when the
corrections, i.e., revisions, to be made are identified.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Wurtzel does not disclose “correcting the
asset using an arc of corrections and approvals needed to correct the
identified corrections using a computer-implemented revision interface
tool,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 8-10). Appellants assert that “an arc of
corrections and approvals,” as recited in claim 1 is a curved, non-linear path
of corrections and approvals, and argue that there is no mention in paragraph
[0156] of Wurtzel, on which the Examiner relies, of an arc path used for
correcting errors or defects identified in an asset (App. Br. 9-10 and Reply
Br. 6-8).
We agree with the Examiner that the rejection is proper and that
“[r]ead in light of the specification, Wurtzel’s disclosure [at paragraph
[0156]] of sequentially defined checkpoints for revisions and approval is
sufficient to meet the claim” (Ans. 11). Appellants’ Specification at page
11, lines 4-15 defines an “arc” as “the corrective path one or more assets . . .
take through a sequence of sets of simultaneous tasks.” The Examiner thus
Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219

5
properly interpreted “correcting the asset using an arc of corrections and
approvals . . .” as correcting the asset using a sequence of sets of tasks (Ans.
11).
Appellants quote from the Specification and emphasize that the
Specification describes that the “repetition of tasks” required to correct the
identified error “is not necessarily linear” (App. Br. 8-9 and Reply Br. 8).
But that cited language plainly does not limit the repetition of tasks and,
therefore, an “arc,” to a non-linear path. Instead, the clear implication is that
an arc may be either linear or non-linear because the “repetition of tasks”
required to correct the identified error “is not necessarily linear” (see Spec.
11, ll. 4-12).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Wurtzel. We also will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 102(e) rejection of dependent claims 2-9 because those claims were not
separately argued.

Independent claims 18 and dependent claims 19 and 20
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 18 under § 102(e) with reference to Appellants’ arguments with
respect to claim 1. Because we found those arguments unpersuasive as to
claim 1, we find them equally unpersuasive as to claim 18. We will,
therefore, sustain the rejections under § 102(e) of independent claim 18 and
dependent claims 19 and 20 for the same reasons as set forth above with
respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2011-004183
Application 11/104,219

6
Dependent claim 10
Dependent claim 10 depends from claim 1. Appellants did not present
any separate substantive argument to support the patentability of claim 10.
Instead, Appellants merely asserted that the § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 is
improper because “the cited references do not suggest the claimed invention
either explicitly or impliedly, or the examiner did not present a convincing
line of reasoning as to why the [skilled] artisan would have found the
claimed invention to have been obvious” and because claim 10 inherits the
patentability of independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11 and Reply Br. 8).
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh