Ex Parte Chun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 2014

11176239 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HYE-JEONG CHUN, SUNG-WOOK PARK, KIL-SOO JUNG, and JUNG-WAN KO ____________ Appeal 2011-013477 Application 11/176,239 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 31-43, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-013477 Application 11/176,239 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a storage medium including metadata which provides an extended search function (Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-readable medium which is used in a reproducing apparatus, comprising: audio-visual data comprising a plurality of scenes; and metadata comprising at least one search keyword which is used by the reproducing apparatus in searching for each of the scenes of the audio-visual data, the at least one search keyword comprising a predefined search keyword indicating a scene or a character and an author defined search keyword which is to be additionally defined by an author, the author defined search keyword enabling the author to add information that is necessary to describe content of the storage medium, the author defined search keyword comprising an author-defined descriptor which is a descriptor identifying that the corresponding descriptor is the author defined search keyword, the author-defined descriptor comprising a name descriptor which is used in describing the value of the author defined search keyword. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 31–43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schneider (US 2005/0069225 A1, pub. Mar. 31, 2005). Appeal 2011-013477 Application 11/176,239 3 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations requiring “an author defined search keyword which is to be additionally defined by an author,” and “the author defined search keyword comprising an author-defined descriptor which is a descriptor identifying that the corresponding descriptor is the author defined search keyword” (App. Br. 11) (emphasis omitted). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitations are found in Schneider at paragraphs 71, 108, 158, 161, and Figure 16 (Ans. 5, 17–18). We agree with the Appellants. Here, the cited claim limitations above require, in part, at least an “author defined search keyword which is to be additionally defined by an author” and the use of the further “author-defined descriptor.” Support for these claim limitations is provided, for example, in the Specification at Figure 3 which shows both a keyword 303 and accompanying description 304. The citations made in the rejection of record to paragraphs 71, 108, 158, 161, and Figure 16 do not show these required claim limitations. For example, Schneider at paragraph 158 does disclose the use of a keyword or tag but it is not specifically disclosed that this is 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2011-013477 Application 11/176,239 4 author-defined or includes an accompanying author-defined descriptor, as the claim requires. As the cited portions of Schneider fail to disclose the cited claim limitation, the rejection of record of claim 1 is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation, and the rejection of these claims is not sustained for these same reasons. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-14, and 31-43 is reversed. REVERSED mls