Ex Parte Bankowski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2017

14031391 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/031,391 09/19/2013 Stefan Bankowski 83374605 5822 28395 7590 04/04/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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 @brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFAN BANKOWSKI Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ALEX S. YAP, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a processor configured to access one or more user-specified social media sites and obtain posted song recommendations from the one or more social media sites. The processor is further configured to assemble the song recommendations into a playlist, access a song-providing service, and request music on the playlist from the song providing service. The processor is additionally configured to play the requested music. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a processor configured to: receive a request to assemble a playlist; access one or more user-specified social media sites; obtain posted song recommendations from the one or more social media sites; assemble the song recommendations into a play list; access a song-providing service; request music on the play list from the song providing service; and play the requested music. 2 Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 5, 9-11, 13, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reznor in view of Estrada. Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reznor, in view of Estrada, and further in view of Kuper. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reznor, in view of Estrada, and further in view of Svendsen. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reznor, in view of Estrada and Svendsen, and further in view of Rasmussen. The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Reznor in view of Estrada teaches or suggests the limitations of “obtain posted song recommendations from the one or more social media Svendsen US 2008/0250067 A1 Estrada US 2009/0327437 A1 Kuper US 2013/0073584 A1 Rasmussen US 2013/0073983 A1 Reznor US 2014/0115463 A1 Oct. 9, 2008 Dec. 31,2009 Mar. 21,2013 Mar. 21,2013 Apr. 24, 2014 REJECTIONS ISSUE 3 Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 sites” and “assemble the song recommendations into a play list,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Appellant argues that the combination of Reznor in view of Estrada does not teach or suggest the limitations of “obtain posted song recommendations from the one or more social media sites” and “assemble the song recommendations into a play list,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4). Appellant argues that Estrada teaches that a song recommendation can be posted in a chat room or on a site, and then a notification is sent to a “friend” of the poster, but there is no utilization of the information about the song in any other manner to deliver those songs (App. Br. 6). Appellant further argues that while Reznor teaches utilization of recommendations from social media sites to be added to a playlist, the recommendations pertain to “similar” music based on parameters (App. Br. 7). We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter 4 Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner that Reznor teaches obtaining song recommendations based on information from social networking sites and then assembling the song recommendations into a playlist (paras. 37 and 61; Ans. 4) and requesting music on a playlist from the song providing service (para. 38; Ans. 4). The Examiner then relies on Estrada for the explicit teaching of a user recommending a song to a friend by posting the recommendation to a chat room (para. 14), sharing a playlist of songs (para. 14), and sending a .vo«g/album/playlist/profile to another member (para. 29) (Ans. 3). Therefore, Estrada teaches or suggests obtaining a posted song recommendation, as actual songs are recommended, shared, and sent to other users (Ans. 3). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2—20, which were not argued separately (App. Br. 9-10). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Reznor in view of Estrada teaches or suggests the limitations of “obtain posted song 5 Appeal 2016-007639 Application 14/031,391 recommendations from the one or more social media sites” and “assemble the song recommendations into a play list,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6