Ex Parte Bodin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2013

11372329 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM K. BODIN, DAVID JARAMILLO,
JERRY W. REDMAN, and DERRAL C. THORSON
____________

Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention associates user-selected “content management
directives” (i.e., actions performed on content managed by a content
management server) with a user-selected rating. In one implementation,
Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

2
plural directives are presented to a user and an associated rule is created that
is embedded in a content media file. See generally Abstract; Spec. 50-53;
Figs. 25-26. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for associating user selected
content management directives with a user selected rating, the method
carried out by a computer comprising a computer processor and computer
memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the method
comprising:
presenting to a user a plurality of predefined content management
directives;
wherein content management directives comprise actions performed
on content managed by a content management server;
receiving from a user an identification of a particular content
management directive;
receiving from a user an identification of the rating to invoke the
content management directive;
storing the identification of the content management directive in
association with the rating to invoke the content management directives;
creating a rule associating the content management directive, the
rating and content to be managed by the content management directive; and
embedding the rule in the media file of the content.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kotz (US 2004/0068552 A1; Apr. 8,
2004) and Ramaswamy (US 2004/0003394 A1; Jan. 1, 2004). Ans. 3-6.1

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Kotz and Ramaswamy collectively teach or
suggest every recited element of representative claim 1, and cites Kotz for

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 18,
2010 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 12, 2010 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

3
presenting plural “content management directives” to a user, namely actions
performed on content by rating it “BAD” or “GOOD” in Figure 5. Ans. 3-4,
7. Kotz is also said to receive an identification of a (1) particular content
management directive (i.e., whether the content is favorable or not), and (2)
rating to invoke the content management directive, namely the content’s
interest level. Ans. 4, 8-9. Although the Examiner finds that Kotz creates a
rule associating the directive, rating, and content, the Examiner
acknowledges that Kotz does not embed the rule in a content media file, but
cites Ramaswamy as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would
have been obvious. Ans. 3-6, 9-10.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
(1) presenting plural predefined content management directives to a user,
where the directives comprise actions performed on content; (2) receiving an
identification of a particular content management directive from the user;
and (3) embedding the recited rule in a content media file as claimed. Br. 6-
11. Although Appellants acknowledge that Kotz uses content ratings to
perform an action, namely identify content to recommend to a user,
Appellants contend that this action is not on the content as claimed. Br. 6-8.
Appellants add that even if playing a song in Kotz’s Figure 5 could be
considered a content management directive, there is only one such
directive—not plural directives presented to the user as claimed. Br. 8.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kotz and Ramaswamy collectively would have taught or suggested
(1) presenting plural predefined content management directives to a user,
Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

4
where the directives comprise actions performed on content; (2) receiving an
identification of a particular content management directive from the user;
and (3) embedding the recited rule in a content media file?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the key disputed term “content management
directive” must comprise actions performed on content managed by a
content management server by the terms of representative claim 1. Accord
Spec. 33:6-8 (similarly defining “content management directives” as
performed “on” content managed by a content management server).
Appellants also provide various examples of these directives including
deleting, forwarding, and highlighting content, retrieving additional content,
“and many others as will occur to those of skill in the art.” Spec. 33:8-10
(emphasis added). Our emphasis of this non-limiting and open-ended phrase
only underscores that Appellants’ “content management directives” are not
limited to these examples.
Turning to the rejection, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding
that the user’s rating content (e.g., a song) “BAD” or “GOOD” in Kotz’s
user interface of Figure 5 (Ans. 3-4, 7) at least suggests the recited content
management directives. Ans. 3-4, 7 (citing Kotz ¶ 0053; Fig. 5). As shown
below, Kotz’s Figure 5 has two buttons on this interface labelled “BAD!
(skip)” and “GOOD!” respectively which enables users to rate received
content.
Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

5

Kotz’s interface in Figure 5 with “BAD! (skip)”
and “GOOD!” rating buttons
Even assuming, without deciding, that rating content does not itself
act on the content as Appellants contend (Br. 7-8), the user’s rating the
content as “BAD! (skip)” nonetheless at least suggests that this content is
also skipped—an act performed on the content. That the user can also
affirmatively skip to the next song via a dedicated “Skip to Next Song . . . ”
button below the rating button—an action on the content as Appellants
acknowledge (Br. 8)—only bolsters this conclusion. So even assuming,
without deciding, that skipping to the next song via this dedicated button is
independent of skipping associated with the “BAD! (skip)” content rating
button, Kotz nonetheless at least suggests performing a similar action on
badly-rated content, namely skipping it. And by negative implication, Kotz
at least suggests an opposite action on the content if the “GOOD!” button is
selected, namely not skipping that content. Therefore, Kotz at least suggests
providing plural buttons that present different “content management
directives” to the user.
Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

6
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kotz’s
system receives an identification of a particular content management
directive from the user, namely as favorable or unfavorable, upon selecting
either the “GOOD!” or “BAD! (skip)” button, respectively. Ans. 4, 8-9.
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9) are unavailing and not commensurate with the
scope of the claim.
We are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Ramaswamy for teaching embedding the recited rule in a content media file
as claimed. Apart from reiterating that Kotz lacks content management
directives (Br. 11), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
findings regarding Kotz’ rule creation. Ans. 5, 10 (citing Kotz ¶¶ 0053,
0064). Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on
Ramaswamy for the limited purpose for which it was cited, namely to show
that embedding metadata into video content is known, and that, in view of
this teaching, it would have been obvious to embed Kotz’s rule in a media
file to enhance searching. Ans. 5, 9-10 (citing Ramaswamy ¶ 0019).
Lastly, while Appellants nominally argue various other recited
elements of claim 1 (Br. 11-12), Appellants reiterate similar arguments
directed to the cited prior art’s alleged failure to disclose content
management directives which we find unpersuasive for the reasons noted
above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 not separately
argued with particularity.

Appeal 2010-010907
Application 11/372,329

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15
under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc