Ex Parte RYU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

11970214 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
11/970,214 01/07/2008 Sung-Ho RYU Q104233 2593
23373 7590 12/01/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG-HO RYU, SEOK-HYUN YOON, MIN-HYOK BANG,
WON-HO RYU, and HYUN-JOO KANG1
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—8, 12—14, 16—19, 23—26, and 28. Claims 4, 9-11,
15, 20—22, 27, and 29-31 are canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Invention
Appellants claimed invention is directed to generating a playlist of
and playing media content. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized,
are exemplary:
1. A method of generating a playlist of media content to be
played, the method comprising:
providing a user interface for setting at least one playlist
while a current media content is being played, and arranging a
plurality of playlist filters; and
generating the playlist of media content to be played
according to the at least one playlist filter setting set through the
user interface;
wherein the plurality of playlist fdters limits a range of
media content to be included in the playlist according to a
relation between the current media content that is playing and
the media content to be included in the playlist, and the
plurality of playlist filters comprise a first playlist filter which
limits a first range of media content to be included in the
playlist and a second playlist filter which limits a second range
of media content to be included in the playlist,
wherein the second range is different from the first range
and
wherein the relation between the current media content
that is playing and the media content to be included in the
playlist, is with regard to a metadata-based playlist filter or at
least one similarity-based playlist filter.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the providing of the user
interface further comprises arranging the plurality of playlist
fdters in ascending or descending order of widths of respective
corresponding ranges of media content to be included in the
play list.
2
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5—8, 12—14, 16—19, 23—26, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (US 2006/
0168340 Al; July 27, 2006) and Rogers et al. (US 2006/0195789 Al; Aug.
31,2006). Final Act. 3-19.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Heller and
Rogers teaches or suggests: (1) “providing a user interface for setting at
least one playlist while a current media content is being played” and (2)
“wherein the plurality of playlist filters limits a range of media content to be
included in the playlist according to a relation between the current media
content that is playing and the media content to be included in the playlist,”
as recited in claim 1 ?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Heller and
Rogers teaches or suggests “wherein the providing of the user interface
further comprises arranging the plurality of playlist filters in ascending or
descending order of widths of respective corresponding ranges of media
content to be included in the play list,” as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 6—8, 12—14, 17—19, 23—26, and 28
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Heller’s advanced interface
1002, which allows a user to enable live updating (i.e., dynamic updating) to
be enabled for a playlist, teaches or suggests providing a user interface for
setting at least one playlist while a current media content is being played.
Final Act. 3 (citing Heller || 58, 83, Figs. 5A—D, 10A).
3
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because although Heller’s
automatically or dynamically updates or regenerates “playlists when a
determination is made that media content available to the media system has
been altered .... Heller does not teach or suggest that the playlists are set
while a current media content is being played.” App. Br. 9-10; see also
Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because, as the
Examiner correctly notes, the “claim language only requires the playlist be
updateable by the user while the current selection is playing.” Ans. 19.
Appellants acknowledge that in Heller, “[o]nce a determination is
made that the data source has been updated (for example, deleted), the
deleted track in the playlist is processed, and the deleted track is removed
from the playlist, thereby removing the data structure which associated the
deleted track from the playlist.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellants
argue that Heller’s updating of a playlist “has no relation or correspondence
to the playing of a current media content.” Id. However, with respect to the
disputed recitation, the setting (e.g., an updating) need not relate to the
playing of a current media content. Rather, the setting merely has to take
effect “while a current media content is being played.” This could be, for
example, when the device acts upon a determination, that occurs while a
current media content is being played, that a data source has been updated.
We agree with the Examiner that such a situation is taught or
suggested by Heller. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner correctly
finds that Heller teaches or suggests a playlist update propagating during idle
processing. Id. (citing Heller | 58, Figs. 5A—D). That is, Heller performs an
update to a “dynamic playlist in the idle processing [such that] somewhat
intensive computations/processes being performed are able to be done in a
4
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
background mode without impacting the user’s perceived performance of the
computing device (e.g., media system).” Heller 158 (emphasis added); see
also Ans. 20. Because Heller explicitly highlights that the update can take
effect during a background mode, Heller teaches or suggests that other
operations, such as playing a current media, can continue operating in a
foreground mode of operation without impacting the user’s perception of the
device’s performance. See Heller 158. Although Heller does not explicitly
disclose a foreground mode of operation, its existence is implicit in the
disclosure of a background mode.
Appellants argue that “if the computing device is in an idle state, a
current media would not be played, thus clearly undermining the Examiner’s
position.” App. Br. 12. That is, Appellants argue that Heller’s computing
device idle state cannot occur while the device is playing a current media
(i.e., that the operation of playing the current media takes up all computing
device resources in Heller). However, Appellants unpersuasively rely on
mere attorney argument rather than persuasive evidence to support this
conclusory assertion.
The Examiner further finds Heller’s updating of a playlist based on
alterations of an underlying data source in combination with Rogers’
creation of a playlist of songs with a high affinity to a selected song teaches
or suggests wherein the plurality ofplaylist fdters limits a range of media
content to be included in the playlist according to a relation between the
current media content that is playing and the media content to be included in
the playlist. See Final Act. 4 (citing Heller || 32, 67); Ans. 21 (citing Heller
1 83, Fig. 10a; Rogers Fig. 47, Tflf 106, 170).
5
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Heller “does not teach
or suggest a relation between the current media content that is playing
and the media content to be included in the playlist.” App. Br. 14; see
also Reply Br. 7. Appellants acknowledge that “Rogers teaches that a user
may create a similar playlist of songs based on a song that is selected from a
list of songs displayed on a playlist,” but argues that Rogers fails to “teach or
suggest that the selected song is a song that is being currently played.” App.
Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 7.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Rogers depicts an
interface having both a “Play Song” button 4705 and a “create a similar
playlist of songs” button 4715. Rogers Fig. 47; see also Ans. 21. Rogers
also depicts the interface having controls for affecting the playback of a
current media. See Rogers Fig. 47 (play, stop, volume control, etc., depicted
at top). This integration of controls related to playing a selected media,
affecting the playback of the selected media, and creating a playlist of songs
similar to the current media supports the Examiner’s finding that Rogers
teaches or suggests selecting “songs with a high affinity to the song selected
(the current song playing).” Ans. 5 (citing Rogers 1170, Fig. 47).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Heller and Rogers teaches or suggests: (1) “providing a user interface for
setting at least one playlist while a current media content is being played”
and (2) “wherein the plurality of playlist filters limits a range of media
content to be included in the playlist according to a relation between the
current media content that is playing and the media content to be included in
the playlist,” as recited in claim 1.
6
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6—8, 12—14, 17—19, 23—26, and 28, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See App. Br. 13.
Claims 5 and 16
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds the Rogers’ sorting of media
files using data in Duration column 210 teaches or suggests wherein the
providing of the user interface further comprises arranging the plurality of
playlist fdters in ascending or descending order of widths of respective
corresponding ranges of media content to be included in the play list. Final
Act. 6—7 (citing Rogers 1116, Figs. 2, 3). The Examiner notes that “[t]he
claim language does not define what an ‘order of widths’ must include [and
therefore] interprets an ‘order of widths’ to be the width of a song duration.”
Ans. 22.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Rogers merely
teaches that a list of media content may be sorted into columns representing
information about each respective media file,” but “Rogers does not teach,
mention, or suggest the width of anything.” App. Br. 16. However, we
agree with the Examiner that a reasonable broad interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of the limitation “width” encompasses media duration. Ans.
22.
Appellants further argue that the duration in “Rogers does not. . .
correspond to ‘a plurality of playlist filters’ .... The ‘duration’ is simply
information pertaining to the content within a playlist.” Reply Br. 8
(emphasis added). That is, Appellants’ argue that Rogers’ listing of songs,
each having a duration, does not apply to a plurality of playlist filters.
However, Appellants do not persuasively distinguish a plurality of playlist
7
Appeal 2014-009513
Application 11/970,214
filters from a listing of songs. In particular, the Specification illustrates an
“arrangement of a number of playlist filters” that includes a single song as a
playlist filter. See Spec. 125, Fig. 2 (“CURRENT SONG”). Thus, a single
song falls within a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of a playlist filter. Thus, each of the songs in Rogers’ listing
of songs represents a single-song playlist filter. Therefore, Heller, in
combination with Rogers’ depiction of an arrangement of a plurality of
songs (i.e., playlist filters) sortable based on the duration of teach song,
teaches or suggests “wherein the providing of the user interface further
comprises arranging the plurality of playlist filters in ascending or
descending order of widths of respective corresponding ranges of media
content to be included in the play list,” as recited in claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 5, and claim 16, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—8, 12—14,
16-19, 23-26, and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8