Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

13535264 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
13/535,264 06/27/2012 Douglas C. Hwang ADBLE.020P3 9895
79502 7590 12/29/2016
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
(SEAZN) (AMAZON)
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
S E AZN. Admin @ knobbe .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS C. HWANG, AJAY ARORA,
DOUGLAS S. GOLDSTEIN, SHIRLEY C. YANG, and
GUY A. STORY JR.
Appeal 2016-001343
Application 13/535,264
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—22, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Audible, Inc. and Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the
real parties in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001343
Application 13/535,264
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to interchangeable presentation of
companion content with a base content. Spec. 115.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for facilitating presentation of
supplemental content, the system comprising:
one or more data stores configured to store:
information regarding a base content;
information regarding one or more items of
supplemental content, wherein each item of
supplemental content comprises a video content
associated with at least one subject referenced by
the base content and providing additional
information not included within the base content
regarding the at least one subject; and
content synchronization information that
correlates positions within the base content with the
one or more items of supplemental content; and
one or more computer systems in
communication with the one or more data stores, the
one or more computer systems configured to:
receive consumption information indicating a
position of consumption of the base content;
identify at least one item of supplemental
content from the one or more items of supplemental
content providing additional information regarding
a subject referenced at the position of consumption,
wherein the at least one item of supplemental
content is identified based at least in part on the
received consumption information and the content
synchronization information; and
2
Appeal 2016-001343
Application 13/535,264
transmit the at least one item of supplemental
content to a user device for presentation to a user.
The Rejections
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locker et
al. (US 2011/0231474 Al; Sept. 22, 2011), Moreno et al. (US 8,131,545 Bl;
Mar. 6, 2012), and Linden (US 6,912,505 B2; June 28, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “identify at least one
item of supplemental content from the one or more items of supplemental
content providing additional information regarding a subject referenced at
the position of consumption.” The Examiner rejects claim 1 relying on
Linden column 20 lines 50—60 as meeting the claimed “supplemental
content providing additional information regarding a subject referenced at
the position of consumption.” Final Act. 4. Appellants contend, inter alia,
the Examiner errs because the Examiner’s findings do not meet the plain
claim language. App. Br. 9. For instance, Appellants argue Linden does not
teach addressing the content of an item at a point of consumption, instead
teaching mechanisms for determining whether a user has expressed interest
in an item as a whole. Id. The Examiner fails to substantively respond to
Appellants’ argument. See Ans. 2—\.
We agree with Appellants. We have reviewed the portion of Linder
cited by the Examiner and cannot find therein disclosure that would teach or
suggest the disputed claim language to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus,
on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, nor the rejection of its dependent claims 2—5.
3
Appeal 2016-001343
Application 13/535,264
Similarly, independent claim 6 recites, in relevant part, “identifying
one or more subject matters associated with the consumption information,
the subject matters corresponding to subjects referenced by the base
content.” Independent claim 14 recites, in relevant part, “determine at least
one item of supplemental content associated with a subject referenced by the
base content based at least in part on the received consumption information.”
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 14 relying on Moreno column 6 lines 1—
18 as meeting the disputed claim limitations. Final Act. 6, 9. Appellants
contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the Examiner’s findings do
not meet the plain claim language. App. Br. 14—15. The Examiner fails to
substantively respond to Appellants’ argument. See Ans. 2-4.
We agree with Appellants. We have reviewed the portion of Moreno
cited by the Examiner. The cited portion describes Moreno’s speech
recognizer 212 using a dictionary of text and sounds to aid in aligning a
transcript to audio data. Moreno, 5:55—6:7. We are unable to discern from
the record before us how the cited portion of Moreno’s disclosure would
teach or suggest the disputed claim language to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 6 and 14, nor the rejection of their dependent claims 7—13 and 15—22.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—22.
REVERSED
4