Ex Parte Kandekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12662248 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/662,248 04/07/2010 Kuna! Kandekar
71739 7590 04/29/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CT-MED-055/US (P365) 7625
EXAMINER
VO,HUYENX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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 KUNAL KANDEKAR, ALFREDO C. ISSA,
RICHARD J. WALSH, and RA VI REDDY KATPELL Y
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants indicate that LEMI TECHNOLOGY, LLC is the real party in
interest in this appeal. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a system and method for distributed
audience feedback on semantic analysis of media content. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method of distributed audience
feedback of media content in one of real time or substantially real
time, comprising:
semantically analyzing, at a semantic speech analysis
engine, media content from a media program and identifying
relevant topic data;
distributing, at a topic data publisher, the identified
relevant topic data to an audience of the media program;
collecting, at a server, audience opinions on the identified
relevant topic data; and
processing the collected audience opm10ns, wherein
processing the collected audience opinions includes analyzing
the audience opinions based on at least one of rules configured
for analysis techniques to be applied, rules concerning the
identified relevant topic data, and rules concerning the type of
opinion data,
wherein at least one of the preceding actions is performed
on at least one electronic hardware device.
2
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koski
Faris et al.
Mahajan et al.
Canning et al.
US 2008/0082499 Al
US 2009/0043814 Al
US 7,640,272 B2
US 7,844,668 B2
REJECTIONS
Apr. 3, 2008
Feb. 12,2009
Dec. 29, 2009
Nov. 30, 2010
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-7, 9-22, and 26-31 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahajan in view of Faris.
Claims 8 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mahajan in view of Faris further in view of Koski.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9-22, and 26-31
With respect to independent claims 1, 11, 1 7, and 2 7, Appellants
argue the claims together. (App. Br. 14). We select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants'
arguments thereto.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
contend that neither Mahajan nor Faris, singly or in combination, discloses
or renders obvious the features of distributing, at a topic data publisher, the
identified relevant topic data to an audience of the media program and
collecting, at a server, audience opinions on the identified relevant topic
3
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248
data. (App. Br. 15-16). Moreover, Appellants do not address the portions
of the Mahajan reference, which the Examiner cited to teach and suggest the
claimed "distributing, at a topic data publisher, the identified relevant topic
data to an audience of the media program (col. 8, line 25 to col. 9, line 61
and/or referring to figure 6; providing content including topic segments for
the user)." (Final Act. 3). Appellants do not specifically argue the relied
upon portion of the Mahajan reference in the Appeal Brief, but generally
address column 9 of the Mahajan reference in the Reply Brief regarding the
Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation. (Reply Br. 4---6).
Appellants further contend:
Mahajan and Faris fail to disclose or render obvious the recited
feature that "processing the collected audience opinions includes
analyzing the audience opinions based on at least one of rules
configured for analysis techniques to be applied, rules
concerning the identified relevant topic data, and rules
concerning the type of opinion data" as required by the
recitations of independent claims 1, 11, 17, and 27.
(App. Br. 16). Appellants provide a discussion of paragraph 49 of the Faris
reference, which is the portion of Faris relied upon to teach and suggest the
use of rules. (App. Br. 17). Appellants argue the Faris reference does not
teach at least one of 1) rules configured for analysis techniques to be
applied, 2) rules concerning the identified relevant topic data, and 3) rules
concerning the type of opinion data. (App. Br. 17). Appellants further argue
Faris teaches away from the comments being opinions on distributed
identified relevant topic data to an audience of a media program, because the
comments are comments on a web page. (App. Br. 17). However, we find
Appellants do not identify any specific teaching or suggestion that would
4
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248
have discouraged a skilled artisan from following the path set out in Faris, or
would have led a skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by Appellants.
The Examiner maintains "Faris et al. was relied upon for the teaching
of using at least one of these rules to process and analyze the collected
audience opinions (paragraph 49)." (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner
and note that the language of independent claim 1 recites "at least one of
rules .... " We find Appellants' argument recites all three types of rules
without addressing the merits of each individual rule compared to the
teachings of the Faris reference. Consequently, Appellants' argument does
not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent
claim 1.
Reply Brief
Appellants argue that the Examiner's newly relied upon portions of
the Mahajan reference, rather than the portions of the Faris reference, in the
Examiner's Answer relies upon a claim interpretation beyond the broadest
reasonable interpretation. (Reply Br. 4---6). Appellants do not identify what
portion of the Specification is relied upon to properly interpret or define the
claimed "audience" to show error in the Examiner's claim interpretation and
application of the relevant prior art. As a result, Appellants' argument does
not show error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
Claims 8 and 23-25
With respect to claims 8 and 23-25, Appellants argue the claims
together, and rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claim 1. (App. Br. 18). Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the
5
Appeal2014-006487
Application 12/662,248
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of claims 8 and 23-25 for similar
reasons as provided supra with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-31 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-31.
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