12818913 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

Ex Parte Wheatley

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2016

12818913 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/818,913 06/18/2010 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 06/02/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark David Wheatley 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. P4228USOO 8844 EXAMINER BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK DAVID WHEATLEY Appeal2014-007113 Application 12/818,913 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL .6. .... ,1 .. â€¢ .. ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....AI/'\. Â£',"1 Appeuant' seeKs our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-007113 Application 12/818,913 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to collaboratively generating playlists. Spec. ,-r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative (bracketed matter added and disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A method comprising facilitating access to at least one interface configured to allow access to at least one service, the at least one service configured to perform at least the following: receiving at a media service platform an input from a first user for initiating [L 1] the creation of a collaborative playlist, the collaborative playlist based, at least in part, on one or more criteria describing content necessary for any media to be included in the collaborative playlist, wherein the input for initiating the creation of the collaborative playlist includes the one or more criteria, and the first user establishes the one or more criteria describing content necessary for any media to be included in the collaborative when initiating the creation of the collaborative play list; and determining to transmit from the media service platform a notification of the collaborative playlist to one or more devices, [L2] wherein the notification includes the one or more criteria, wherein respective users of the one or more devices iteratively update the collaborative playlist [L3] only on condition that the media service platform determines that the update agrees with the one or more criteria describing content necessary for any media to be included in the collaborative playlist, and 2 Appeal2014-007113 Application 12/818,913 wherein the media platform is remote from the first user and the respective users of the one or more devices. The Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over New (US 2006/0195521 Al; publ. Aug. 31, 2006), Rogers (US 2006/0195462 Al; publ. Aug. 31, 2006), and Lester (US 7,689,705 Bl; iss. Mar. 30, 2010). ANALYSIS Appellant argues all claims together. App. Br. 5---6. Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Rogers fails to disclose limitations LI and L3, and Lester fails to disclose limitation L2. App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 3---6. We have considered Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Rather, we agree with and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We emphasize the following. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because they amount simply to arguing the cited references individually, without considering the collective teachings of the references as a whole. Where, as here, a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 3 Appeal2014-007113 Application 12/818,913 Contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner cites New and Lester-not Rogers-as teaching or suggesting limitation LI. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 10. Similarly, the Examiner cites Rogers-not Lester -as teaching or suggesting limitation L2. Final Act. 4; Ans. 11. The Examiner further cites Lester-not Rogers-as teaching or suggesting limitation L3. Final Act. 4. Appellant states: Further, New et al., Rogers , and Lester et al. also do not disclose or render obvious at a media service platform remote from the first user and the respective users of the one or more devices and determining to transmit from the media service platform a notification of the collaborative play list to one or more devices, wherein respective users of the one or more devices iteratively update the collaborative playlist only on condition that the media service platform determines that the update agrees with the one or more criteria describing content necessary for any media to be included in the collaborative playlist, as delineated m independent claim 1. App. Br. 12. Such a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements are not found in the prior art is insufficient to show error. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(iv)(2012); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant's arguments in the Reply Brief seeking to elaborate on these bald statements (Reply Br. 2-3) are waived as raised for the first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-20. 4 Appeal2014-007113 Application 12/818,913 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5