Ex Parte BOO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2015

11837244 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2015)

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.
11/837,244 08/10/2007 John BOO 1398-189
(YPF200703-0018)
4641
66547 7590 04/17/2015
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN BOO
____________

Appeal 2013-002153
Application 11/837,244
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 13–26, all the claims pending in the
application. Claims 2, 4, and 7–12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a mobile terminal capable of
playing multimedia files, wherein file information is provided as speech.
Spec. 1:14–16.

Appeal 2013-002153
Application 11/837,244

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A speech-based file guiding method for a mobile
terminal, the method comprising:
checking if a music play mode is activated;
checking, if the music play mode is activated,
whether a file selection signal is input; and
outputting audio sounds corresponding to file
information on a file selected according to the input file
selection signal if a file selection signal is input,
wherein the outputting of audio sounds includes
finding a music file indicated by the input file selection signal,
extracting metadata from the found music file, creating text
information corresponding to the extracted metadata, and
converting the text information into audio sounds.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 20, and 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Douthitt (US 2009/0326949 A1; Dec. 31,
2009); and
R2. Claims 13–19, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Douthitt.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 20 as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012).

Appeal 2013-002153
Application 11/837,244

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under §102(e) of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Douthitt discloses
extracting metadata from the found music file, creating text information
corresponding to the extracted metadata, and converting the text information
into audio sounds, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellant contends that Douthitt “merely converts text into an audio
expression, without extracting metadata from the found music file, and
creating text information corresponding to the extracted metadata . . . ”
(App. Br. 6). We disagree with Appellant.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Douthitt discloses
in paragraph 0036 that “the user speaks ‘play the Beatles’ (a selection
signal) and the system finds the tracks (music files) associated with the
Beatles” (Ans. 7; citing ¶ 36), and at paragraph 0043 Douthitt discloses that
the “control module 102 will audibly list the meta data entries of each media
file” (id.; citing ¶ 43), and “the extracted meta data entries have been parsed
into various text portions that are eventually output to the user as audible
speech” (id. at 8; citing ¶¶ 28, 33–34, 41). Douthitt further discloses
“extracting meta data from a digital media storage device . . . . identifying a
media file on the digital media storage device, and retrieving meta data from
a media file” (see Abstract).
In other words, Douthitt discloses that a file selection signal is input
via the user’s spoken command and metadata of the available media file is
Appeal 2013-002153
Application 11/837,244

4
provided to the user, either in text and/or by audible means. We find
unavailing Appellant’s contention the Douthitt does not extract metadata
from the found music file and creates text corresponding to the extracted
metadata.
For at these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Douthitt discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1,
and in dependent claims 3, 5, and 6, not separately argued (App. Br. 6–7).
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Douthitt.

Rejection under §102(e) of Claims 20 and 22–25
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Douthitt discloses
parsing metadata of a music file and creating text file information
corresponding to the parsed metadata, as set forth in claim 20?
Appellant contends that, “comparing of the oral command with the
acoustic baseform of the metadata by Douthitt fails to disclose creating text
file information corresponding to the parsed metadata, converting the text
file information on the music file into audio sounds, and sending the audio
sounds to the headset, as recited in Claim 20” (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Douthitt discloses at
paragraph 0028 “media cataloger 248 is configured to parse the media file to
locate the embedded metadata (ID3 tags) and extract them . . . ” (Ans. 7;
citing ¶ 28), and paragraph 0035 “specifically teaches converting text data . .
. . into an acoustic baseform, with a text-to-speech engine” (id. at 8; citing
¶ 35). In other words, Douthitt clearly discloses parsing the media file to
Appeal 2013-002153
Application 11/837,244

5
locate and extract the embedded metadata and using a text-to-speech engine
to convert the meta data entries.
Thus, we find unavailing Appellant’s contention that Douthitt fails to
disclose the argued limitation. For at these reasons, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Douthitt discloses the invention as recited in
independent claim 20 and commensurately recited in independent claim 25,
and dependent claims 22–24 not separately argued (App. Br. 7–8).
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20 and 22–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Douthitt.

Rejection under §103(a) of Claims 13–19, 21, and 26
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 20 above (see App. Br. 7–9),
claims 13–19, 21, and 26 fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) and § 103(a) rejections R1and R2.
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
kme