Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

13442915 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/442,915 04/10/2012
25537 7590 08/26/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nityanand Sharma
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.
20120009 9176
EXAMINER
BYRD, UCHE SOW ANDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITY ANAND SHARMA, SUT AP CHATTERJEE,
MAN OJ THANKAPP AN, and MAXY SEBASTIAN
Appeal2014-005065
Application 13/442,915 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies, which currently include
Verizon Business Global, LLC (formerly MCI, LLC) and Cellco Partnership
(doing business as Verizon Wireless, and which includes as a minority
partner affiliates of Vodafone Group Plc)." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-005065
Application 13/442,915
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a digital asset management
protocol for providing digital assets. (Spec. i-fi-f l-2, Title.)
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a device, a user selection of an asset to be
processed by an asset processing system;
receiving, by the device, a user selection of a type of asset
processing order to be generated;
identifYing, by the device, types of data to be obtained to
generate an asset processing order, in response to receiving the
type of asset processing order to be generated;
obtaining, by the device, order data that includes a work
flow identifier that identifies a process flow to be applied to the
asset;
obtaining, by the device, asset data that includes an asset
identifier that identifies the asset and asset characteristic data that
includes data that indicates one or more characteristics of the
asset;
obtaining, by the device, at least one of ingest data,
transform data, or distribution data, wherein the ingest data
includes data indicating how the asset is to be ingested and where
the asset is located, wherein the transform data includes
transform instructions to be applied to the asset, and wherein the
distribution data includes data indicating where the asset is to be
distributed;
generating, by the device, the asset processing order based
on the obtained order data, the obtained asset data, and the at least
one of the obtained ingest data, the obtained transform data, or
the obtained distribution data; and
transmitting, by the device, the asset processing order and
the asset to the asset processing system.
2
Appeal2014-005065
Application 13/442,915
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Gill
(US 6,947,959 Bl, iss. Sept. 20, 2005), Harris (US 2012/0079529 Al, pub.
Mar. 29, 2012), and Shafer (US 7,165,722 B2, iss. Jan. 23, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Gill teaches:
identifying, by the device, types of data to be obtained to
generate an asset processing order, in response to receiving the
type of asset processing order to be generated (Gill: Col.19, Ln.
53---63, Action Folders has a corresponding script which
determines the action to be applied to assets that are associated
with the Action Folder).
(Final Action 3.) The Examiner also finds that
Gill is teaching that by having Action Folders you are obtaining
Types of data, moreover in Gill: Col.8, Ln. 10-16, [e]ach header
field in a header has a unique name and is designed to contain a
specific kind of metadata. . . . Each header field can contain
only a specific type of information.
(Id. at 9-10.)
Appellants argue that
the Examiner mischaracterizes the "identifying" recitation by
attempting to collapse this recitation into a step that merely
obtains types of data. However, this is not the case. Rather,
claim 1 recites, inter alia, "identifying, by the device, types of
data to be obtained to generate an asset processing order, in
response to receiving the type of asset processing order to be
generated."
(Appeal Br. 9-10.)
3
Appeal2014-005065
Application 13/442,915
The Examiner answers that "Gill, Col 5, 35---60 mentions the three
layers .... Now, if you have three layers of structure, then that means you
have three different types of data." (Answer 4--5.)
Gill teaches that information in a header field identifies the types of
data that can later be obtained for various purposes, e.g., for generating an
asset processing order. (See Gill, col. 8, 11. 10-16; see also Final Action 9-
10.) Gill also teaches that an action folder script allows "applying header
data to newly added assets." (Gill, col. 19, 11. 55-57.) Thus, a user can
select a file, i.e., select an asset to be processed. The user can also select an
action folder (into which to place the file) that will run a script, i.e., the user
selects a type of asset processing order to be generated. (See Gill, col. 19, 11.
57-59.)
Claim 1 further recites: "identifying, by the device, types of data to be
obtained to generate an asset processing order, in response to receiving the
type of asset processing order to be generated." (Claim 1, emphasis added.)
As we understand the portions of Gill cited by the Examiner, the
user's selection of an action folder simultaneously selects the script, i.e.,
simultaneously selects the types of data the script will seek to obtain from
the asset/file. In other words, identification of the types of data to be
obtained is simultaneous with, rather than in response to, receiving the type
of asset processing order to be generated.
Additionally, although the device, i.e., the script, obtains the data, it is
the user, rather than the device, who selects the types of data to be obtained
by selecting the action folder.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 1 7 contain similar language and for
4
Appeal2014-005065
Application 13/442,915
similar reasons we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting those
claims as well as in rejecting dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
5