Ex Parte Shaffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2014

11958076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHMUEL SHAFFER, RAMANATHAN T. JAGADEESAN,
BICH TU NGUYEN, GREGORY D. PELTON, and
LABHESH PATEL
____________

Appeal 2012-006834
Application 11/958,076
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shmuel Shaffer et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1–5,
7–12, 14–19, and 21 as unpatentable over Garbow (US 2008/0091717 A1,
publ. Apr. 17, 2008) and Spiegelman (US 2006/0195480 A1, publ. Aug. 31,
2006). Claims 6, 13, and 20 have been canceled. App. Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2012-006834
Application 11/958,076

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for
synchronizing playback of media files including a server and one or more
client devices. Spec., ¶¶ 8, 24.
Claims 1, 7, 14, and 21 are independent. Br. 15–19. Independent
claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. An aggregation server, comprising:
a network interface operable to communicate with one or
more client devices; and
a server processing module operable to:
receive selection information from the one or more
client devices;
use the selection information to generate a playlist
identifying one or more media files; and
synchronize on at least some of the client devices
playback of the media files from the playlist.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Garbow discloses all the limitations of
independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 21, with the exception of synchronizing
playback of media files. Ans. 6. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Spiegelman “discloses wherein multiple client devices are synchronized for
media playback by utilizing playlists.” Id. (citations omitted).
In response, Appellants argue that although Spiegelman discloses
“‘synchronizing’ changes [made] to the content of playlists,” Spiegelman
fails to disclose “synchronizing playback of media files from a playlist.”
App. Br. 12.
Appeal 2012-006834
Application 11/958,076

3

“Claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the [S]pecification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). In this case, we
interpret the phrase “synchronize playback of the media files” to mean the
act of making recorded sounds/pictures to be heard/seen at the same time.1
Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which
describes synchronization of client devices 12 as “playing substantially the
same portion of the media files of a playlist at substantially the same time.”
Spec. 8, ¶ 24. In contrast, Spiegelman discloses synchronizing the content
of playlists and not their playback. See Spiegelman, ¶ 66 (“synchronizing all
playlist edits and newly created playlists among each user’s local processor
and the playlist storage”); ¶ 67 (“a particular playlist needs to be
synchronized”); ¶ 71 (“when appropriate, the local processor will
synchronize the appropriate playlists”).
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that playback of the
playlist will occur for all users in the same order and sequence (see Ans. 17–
18), nonetheless, we agree with Appellants that this does not mean that the
playing of the media files of the playlist occurs at the same time. See App.
Br. 12.; see also Reply Br. 3. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that
synchronized playlists results in synchronized playback of those playlists
requires speculation on the Examiner’s part. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

1 An ordinary and customary meaning of the terms “synchronize” and
“playback” is “to happen at the same time” and “the act of causing recorded
sounds or pictures to be heard or seen again,” respectively. Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed. 1997).
Appeal 2012-006834
Application 11/958,076

4

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 21, and their respective dependent claims
2–5, 8–12, and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Garbow and Spiegelman.

SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–12,
14–19, and 21.

REVERSED

llw