Ex Parte Raju et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 9, 2018

12971073 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/971,073 12/17/2010
25537 7590 04/11/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Satya S. Raju
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.
20100662 7267
EXAMINER
ALMAN!, MOHSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATYA S. RAJU, MOHAMMAD REZA SHAFIEE,
ARUNANAND ADDEP ALLI, and MICHAEL J. NAGGAR
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to media
management. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1 Appellants identify Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary
companies as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
1. A method comprising:
automatically receiving an asset including content and metadata;
automatically identifying a source metadata format of the metadata;
automatically identifying a target metadata format;
automatically selecting a data map to perform validation of the
metadata and at least one of transforming or translating of the metadata
based on the identifying of the source metadata format and the identifying of
the target metadata format,
wherein the transforming includes converting the metadata to the
target metadata format and the translating includes converting a file type of
the metadata to a target metadata file type;
automatically attempting to validate the metadata based on the data
map;
automatically performing the at least one of the transforming or the
translating of a validated metadata when the metadata is validated based on
the data map,
wherein the transforming includes converting the validated metadata
to the target metadata format, wherein the target metadata format includes
one or more extendible fields and values that correspond to one or more
fields and values included in a source metadata format of the metadata and
not provided by a standard of a metadata format on which the target
metadata format is based and the target metadata format includes each of the
fields and values provided by the standard of the metadata format on which
the target metadata format is based, and
wherein the transforming includes using the one or more extendible
fields when one or more fields of the validated metadata do not have
corresponding one or more fields afforded by the standard of the metadata
format; and
automatically storing a target metadata based on the performing.
Smimov
Bates
Alexander
References and Rejections
US 2007/0174852 Al
US 2010/0235333 Al
US 2011/0004897 Al
2
July 26, 2007
Sept. 16, 2010
Jan. 6, 2011
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alexander and Smimov.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alexander, Smimov, and Bates.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. At the outset, we note claim 1
recites ''performing the at least one of the transforming or the translating of
a validated metadata when the metadata is validated based on the data map"
(emphases added). Because the rejection discusses how Alexander teaches
the limitations related to the "transforming" step (see Final Act. 3-5), we
presume the Examiner is not relying on Alexander to teach the alternative
"translating" step in claim 1 and confine our discussion to claim 1 's
"transforming" limitations.
We concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in
finding the cited portions of Alexander teach "automatically performing the
at least one of the transforming or the translating ... wherein the target
metadata format includes one or more extendible fields and values that
correspond to one or more fields and values included in a source metadata
format of the metadata and not provided by a standard of a metadata format
on which the target metadataformat is based," as recited in independent
3
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
claim 1 (emphases added). 2 See Appeal Brief dated February 27, 2017
("Appeal Br.") 11-15; Reply Brief dated July 28, 2017 ("Reply Br.") 3-6.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds:
wherein the target metadata format includes one or more
extendible fields and values that correspond to one or more
fields and values included in a source metadata format of
the metadata and not provided by a standard of a metadata
format on which the target metadata format is based and
(Alexander, par. [0126], wherein "If the value is not changed by
a rule when creating the localized (target) version, typically the
value present in the national version is used (e.g., for metadata
or content)" indicates that, regardless of being standard or not,
fields and values required by the target formats are mapped to
source format and [0092] wherein, "the national" format is a set
of metadata parameters to be used for multiple system headends
and the "local" format is metadata that is tailored for a
particular headend system, whether it is a cable system, region,
or other designation. It is possible to have other, intermediate
designations such as "national" "regional" and "local" or
' ' ' '
even further levels") [.]
Final Action dated November 17, 2016 ("Final Act.") 4.
Appellants argue, and we agree, Alexander's paragraphs 126
and 92 do not teach the above italicized limitation in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 12-15. Further, the Examiner's above findings do not
address a metadata format with one or more extendible fields, let
alone "wherein the target metadata format includes one or more
extendible fields and values that correspond to one or more fields and
values included in a source metadata format of the metadata and not
provided by a standard of a metadata format on which the target
metadata format is based," as required by claim 1 (emphases added).
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified contention is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
4
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds:
Alexander explicitly discloses crating [sic] fields based on the
existing fields values in the source metadata: i-f 98 "The CCMS
also allows the system administrator to search and change fields
in the various metadata, including creating group titles based
on meta-data values. For example, the system administrator
may create a "Cary Grant" category for a VOD promotion of
classic movies starring the actor Cary Grant, and send the
updated metadata to the appropriate VSPs. All the packages
managed in the CCMS wherein the meta-data includes "Cary
Grant" as an actor are identified by the CCMS and grouped into
this new category. The updated metadata can (and content) can
be sent to destinations as appropriate. Again, all the information
is linked as appropriate in the CCMS, so that when the updated
packages are sent, the CCMS knows all the various forms and
destinations that received the packages".
Examiner's Answer dated June 13, 2017 ("Ans.") 8.
The Examiner's above findings do not address why Alexander's
paragraph 98 teaches the above italicized limitation in claim 1. See Reply
Br. 4. Further, the Examiner does not explain why that paragraph's
disclosure of "allow[ing] the system administrator to search and change
fields in the various metadata" (Alexander i-f 98 (emphasis added)) teaches
"automatically performing the at least one of the transforming ... wherein
the target metadata format includes one or more extendible fields and values
that correspond to one or more fields and values included in a source
metadata format of the metadata and not provided by a standard of a
metadata format on which the target metadata format is based," as required
by claim 1 (emphases added). See Reply Br. 4. Additionally, although
Alexander teaches creating a new category, and packages containing certain
metadata are grouped into the new category (Alexander i-f 98), the Examiner
has not explained sufficiently how such disclosure teaches transforming a
5
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
metadata format to a target metadata format that includes ( 1) one or more
extendible fields; and (2) values included in a source metadata format of the
metadata and not provided by a standard of a metadata format on which the
target metadata format is based, as required by claim 1.
Further, as applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Smimov do not
remedy the deficiencies of Alexander discussed above. See Final Act. 2-5.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 3
Each of independent claims 9 and 16 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 9 and
16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 9 and 16.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20. Although the Examiner cites an additional
reference for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above regarding
the rejection of claim 1.
3 Claim 1 recites "automatically performing the at least one of the
transforming or the translating of a validated metadata when the metadata is
validated based on the data map" (emphasis added). In the event of future
prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether Alexander
and Smimov collectively teach claim 1 when the condition "the metadata is
validated based on the data map" is not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser,
2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB 2016) (holding "[t]he Examiner did not
need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps
of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim").
6
Appeal2017-010299
Application 12/971,073
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7