Ex Parte Toms et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

12234296 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/234,296 09/19/2008
48116 7590 05/23/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yann Toms
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.
LUTZ 2 00605 ALU No.
801
EXAMINER
WILCOX, JAMES J
3775
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANN TOMS, CHRISTOPHE SENOT,
STEPHANE BETGE BREZETZ, and ARMEN AGHASARYAN
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21. Claim 4 has been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
1. A device for indexing content made available to users,
compnsmg:
a processing module configured to associate new metadata
with a select piece of content, wherein the new metadata at least
partially defines the select piece of content based
on contextual information representative of usage of
a set of available content by users;
on user information representative of profiles of the
users that used the set of available content; and
on current metadata previously associated with said
select piece of content;
the processing module comprising:
a first aggregation module configured to aggregate
contextual information for each piece of content from the set of
available content and user information for each user of one or
more piece of content from the set of available content to deliver
primary aggregated information, wherein the contextual
information is representative of the corresponding content
usage, wherein the user information is representative of the
corresponding profiles for the corresponding users; and
a second aggregation module configured to aggregate the
primary aggregated information related to the select piece of
content to deliver new metadata related to the select piece of
content.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro et al. (US
2008/0159715 Al; published July 3, 2008) and Ferman et al. (US
2002/0059584 Al; published May 16, 2002). 1 Final Act. 2-16.
1 We note that although the heading of the Final Rejection states that only
claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under§ 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman (Final Act. 2), the
body of the rejection includes claim 21 (Final Act. 16). Therefore, we
2
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 12 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Johansson et al. (US
2005/0259958 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005). Final Act. 16-19.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 3 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, Johansson, and Hoffert et al. (US
6,282,549 B 1; issued Aug. 28, 2001 ). Final Act. 19-20.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, and 15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Herz et al.
(US 6,029,195; issued Feb. 22, 2000). Final Act. 20-28.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fuasaro, Ferman, and Idehara et al. (US
7,613,730 B2; issued Nov. 3, 2009). Final Act. 28-35.
consider claim 21 to also be rejected as being obvious over the combination
of Fuasaro and Ferman.
3
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
ISSUES2
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-17)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(I) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 as being
obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination fails to teach or suggest a first aggregation module, wherein the
contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage,
wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles
for the corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as recited in
representative independent claim 1?
2 Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to
independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (ii .. pp. Br. 6-17; Reply Br. 2---6).
Appellants rely on the arguments presented for: (i) claim 1 as to the
patentability of dependent claims 7, 8, and 10, which contain similar features
(App. Br. 6-11); (ii) claim 11 as to the patentability of dependent claims 16
and 17 (App. Br. 11-14); and (iii) claim 20 as to the patentability of
dependent claim 21 (App. Br. 14--17). Accordingly, we select: (i) claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims (claims 1, 7, 8, and 10) rejected for
obviousness over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman; (ii) claim 11 as
representative of the group of claims (claims 11, 16, and 17); and claim 20
as representative of the group of claims (claims 20 and 21) rejected for
obviousness over Fuasaro and Ferman.
With regard to the rejection of (i) claims 2 and 12 over the
combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, and Johansson; (ii) claim 3 over the
combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, Johansson, and Hoffert; (iii) claim 5, 6, 13,
and 15 over the combination of Fuasaro, Ferman, and Herz; and (iv) claims
9, 18, and 19 over the combination ofFuasaro, Ferman, and Idehara,
Appellants rely on the arguments already presented with respect to
independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (App. Br. 17).
4
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
(11) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11, 16, and 17 as being
obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination fails to teach or suggest
aggregating the contextual information and user
information to form primary aggregated information associated
with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the
pieces of content;
aggregating the primary aggregated information for a
select piece of content for which aggregated information was
formed to form new metadata for the select piece of content; and
determining if the select piece of content has current
metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current
metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise
creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at
least in part on the new metadata,
as recited in representative independent claim 11?
(III) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 20 and 21 as being
obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination fails to teach or suggest the first aggregation processing module
is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information
to form primary aggregated information associated with the used pieces of
content and the corresponding users; a second aggregation processing
module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a
select piece of content to form new metadata; and a update processing
module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current
metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to
create current metadata, as recited in representative independent claim 20?
5
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-35) in light
of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-17) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response (Ans. 2-11) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal
Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
With regard to representative claims 1, 11, and 20, we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt as our own (1) the findings,
conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (see Final Act. 2-35), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(see Ans. 2-11). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and
suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants'
arguments as follows.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10
We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 1 (Final Act.
2---6) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests a first aggregation module (218) (i-f 3 5;
Fig. 2) and a second aggregation module (308) (i-f 42; Fig. 3). In light of
Appellants' Specification which broadly describes various terms including
"content," "user information," and "user profile" (see pp. 1, 5), Ferman
(i-f 575) teaches or suggests the contextual information is representative of
the corresponding content usage, wherein the user information is
representative of the corresponding profiles for the corresponding users with
its disclosures of user profiles generated to provide information on a user's
interests, personal preferences, content consumption behaviors, and ratings
of specific programs. It would have been obvious to a person having
6
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
ordinary skill in the art to combine Fuasaro with Ferman because doing so
would have produced the added benefit of allowing a service provider to
offer new content to a user based on the user's past consumption and
preferences.
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or
suggest a first aggregation module, wherein the contextual information is
representative of the corresponding content usage, wherein the user
information is representative of the corresponding profiles for the
corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as set forth in
representative claim 1, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 9 (which also rely on the same base combination of Fuasaro and
Ferman).
Claims 11-19
We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 11 (Final
Act. 8-12) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests aggregating the contextual
information (metadata 208) and user information (user profile information
220 (mislabeled 218 in i-f 3 5)) to form primary aggregated information
associated with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the
pieces of content (i-f 35; Fig. 2); aggregating the primary aggregated
information for a select piece of content (bonus content) for which
aggregated information was formed to form new metadata (bonus content
metadata 322) for the select piece of content (i-fi-f 35, 42; Figs. 2 & 3); and
7
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
determining if the select piece of content has current metadata associated
therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata based at least in part on
the new metadata, otherwise creating current metadata for the select piece of
content based at least in part on the new metadata (i-fi-f 42, 46; Figs. 2 and 3).
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or
suggest aggregating the contextual information and user information to form
primary aggregated information associated with usage of the pieces of
content and the users that used the pieces of content; aggregating the
primary aggregated information for a select piece of content for which
aggregated information was formed to form new metadata for the select
piece of content; and determining if the select piece of content has current
metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current metadata
based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise creating current
metadata for the select piece of content based at least in part on the new
metadata, as set forth in representative claim 11, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejections of claims 12-15,
18, and 19 (which also rely on the same base combination of Fuasaro and
Ferman).
Claims 20 and 21
We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 20 (Final
Act. 12-16) that Fuasaro teaches or suggests the first aggregation processing
module (218) is configured to aggregate the contextual information and user
information to form primary aggregated information associated with the
8
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
used pieces of content and the corresponding users (Fig. 2; if 35); a second
aggregation processing module (308) configured to aggregate the primary
aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new metadata
(ifif 42, 46; Figs. 2 and 3); and an update processing module configured to
determine if the select piece of content has current metadata associated
therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to create current
metadata (if 32).
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman fails to teach or
suggest the first aggregation processing module is configured to aggregate
the contextual information and user information to form primary aggregated
information associated with the used pieces of content and the corresponding
users; a second aggregation processing module configured to aggregate the
primary aggregated information for a select piece of content to form new
metadata; and a update processing module configured to determine if the
select piece of content has current metadata associated therewith and update
the current metadata, otherwise to create current metadata, as set forth in
representative claim 20, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 20 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(I) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 as
being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination teaches or suggests a first aggregation module, wherein the
contextual information is representative of the corresponding content usage,
9
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
wherein the user information is representative of the corresponding profiles
for the corresponding users, and a second aggregation module, as recited in
representative independent claim 1.
(II) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 11, 16, and 17 as
being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination teaches or suggests
aggregating the contextual information and user
information to form primary aggregated information associated
with usage of the pieces of content and the users that used the
pieces of content;
aggregating the primary aggregated information for a select piece
of content for which aggregated information was formed to form
new metadata for the select piece of content; and
determining if the select piece of content has current
metadata associated therewith and, if so, updating the current
metadata based at least in part on the new metadata, otherwise
creating current metadata for the select piece of content based at
least in part on the new metadata
as recited in representative independent claim 11.
(III) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 as
being obvious over the combination of Fuasaro and Ferman because the
combination teaches or suggests the first aggregation processing module is
configured to aggregate the contextual information and user information to
form primary aggregated information associated with the used pieces of
content and the corresponding users; a second aggregation processing
module configured to aggregate the primary aggregated information for a
select piece of content to form new metadata; and a update processing
module configured to determine if the select piece of content has current
10
Appeal2014-005868
Application 12/234,296
metadata associated therewith and update the current metadata, otherwise to
create current metadata, as recited in representative independent claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11