Ex Parte Lection

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 2015

11832722 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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. 11/832,722 08/02/2007 David B. Lection I491/US 6594 49277 7590 11/25/2015 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC 5400 Trinity Road Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2015 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 DAVID B. LECTION _____________ Appeal 2013-008462 Application 11/832,722 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a graphical user interface including a media timeline in which media objects are arranged for presentation. See Title and Abstract of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method for arranging a media object in a media timeline, the method comprising: Appeal 2013-008462 Application 11/832,722 2 presenting a graphical user interface including a media timeline for arranging a plurality of media objects in an order for presentation; receiving a selection of a portion of the media timeline representing a time period of presentation; receiving, in a text entry field within the selected portion of the media timeline, a search term for association with the selected portion of the media timeline; retrieving a media object according to a determination that the media object is related to the search term associated with the selected portion of the media timeline; and automatically, in response to retrieving the media object, arranging the media object in the selected portion of the media timeline based on the selection of the portion of the media timeline representing the time period of presentation for presentation of the media object during time period of presentation. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 9–11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cunningham (US 2007/0240072 A1, published Oct. 11, 2007) and Danty (US 2007/0162839 A1, published Jul. 12, 2007). Final Action 2–6.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cunningham, Danty, and Randall (US 2003/0090507 A1, published May 15, 2003). Final Action 6–7. The Examiner has rejected claims 6–8 and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cunningham, Danty, and Bausch (Bausch, Yahoo! Hacks; October 17, 2005). Final Action 7–9. Appeal 2013-008462 Application 11/832,722 3 ISSUE Appellant presents several arguments on pages 8–14 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4–6 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 20. The issue raised by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding Cunningham teaches a search term for association with the selected portion of the media timeline, and a media object related to the search term associated with the selected portion of the media timeline, as required by each of the independent claims? With respect to claims 2–9 and 12 –19, Appellant’s arguments provide us with the same issue as the independent claims. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. The Examiner finds Cunningham’s searching and grabbing a media asset to add to an aggregate media asset on a timeline teaches retrieving a media object related to a search term associated with the selected portion of the media timeline as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5 (citing Cunningham, Fig. 13C; Fig. 14A timeline 1220; ¶¶ 12, 58). Appellant argues although Cunningham teaches a timeline, Cunningham “does not . . . select[] a portion of a timeline, and then receiv[e] a search term for the selected portion of the 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Mar. 18, 2013, the Reply Brief dated Jun. 25, 2013, the Final Action mailed Oct. 18, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 28, 2013. Appeal 2013-008462 Application 11/832,722 4 timeline.” App. Br. 12. We agree with Appellant. Cunningham’s search is not associated with a previously selected portion of the timeline, but instead retrieves and displays media assets without reference to a selected timeline portion. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 20, and dependent claims 2–9 and 12–19, as Randall and Bausch do not cure the deficiencies of Cunningham and Danty (App. Br. 13). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED dw