Ex Parte Sanghavi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 7, 2019

14267808 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/267,808 05/01/2014 61947 7590 06/11/2019 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 HOUSTON, TX 77002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mehul K. Sanghavi 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. P22328US1 (119-1228US1) 1625 EXAMINER BOOK, PHYLLIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2019 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): mbrininger@blankrome.com houstonpatents@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHUL K. SANGHA VI, ALEXANDRE M. MACEDO, and SCOTT M. WITT Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is identified as Apple Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a non-final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Representative Claim Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 are independent. Representative claims 1 and 21 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, from a first client device, a share request indicating a request from the first client device to share a first media station with a second client device, wherein: the first client device is presented with a first version of the first media station, and the first version of the first media station is defined by at least one media station seed and a first set of user preferences associated with a first user account of the first client device; obtaining a second set of user preferences associated with the second user account, wherein the second set of user preferences are different than the first set of user preferences; generating, by the processor, in response to the share request, a second version of the first media station based on the at least one media station seed and the second set of user preferences and not based on the first set of user preferences; and providing, by the processor, the second version of the first media station to the second client device, wherein the first version of the first media station is different than the second version of the first media station. 21. A method comprising: receiving, from a media station service, by a second client device authorized on a second user account, a second 2 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 version of a first media station that was requested to be shared with the second user account by a first user account, wherein: the media station is defined by at least one media station seed, a first client device authorized on the first user account is presented with a first version of the first media station that was generated based on the at least one media station seed and a first set of user preferences associated with the first user account, and the second version of the first media station was generated based on the at least one media station seed and a second set of user preferences associated with the second user account and not based on the first set of user preferences, wherein the second set of user preferences are different than the first set of user preferences; and presenting, by the second client device, the second version of the first media station, wherein the first version of the first media station is different than the second version of the first media station. Rejections Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Willis et al. (US 2013/0031216 Al; Jan. 31, 2013, hereinafter referred to as "Willis"). Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Willis. Appellants' Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 15 because Willis does not teach first user preferences that are different than the second user preferences; and that there 3 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 are different first and second versions of the media stations. (App. Br. 8- 13). 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 because Willis does not teach the claimed "generating a first version of the second media station based on the at least one media station seed defining the first media station, the suggested media station seed, and the first set of user preferences." (App. Br. 13-14). 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting independent claim 21 because Willis does not disclose "'a first version of the first media station ... generated based on the at least one media station seed and a first set of user preferences associated with the first user account' and 'a second version of the first media station ... generated based on the at least one media station seed and a second set of user preferences associated with the second user account and not based on the first set of user preferences."' (App. Br. 14--17). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting representative claim 1 as being obvious over Willis and representative claim 21 as being anticipated by Willis because the reference does not teach the argued limitations? 4 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 ANAL YSIS2, 3 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 4--12). However, we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows. As to above contentions 1 through 3, we disagree with Appellants' arguments. First, the Examiner correctly points out that Willis explicitly discloses different user preferences. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree: Willis discloses a more detailed embodiment in which the system recommendation service, which creates a candidate list of media items related to a particular seed (paragraph [0131 ]), identifies a second user related to the first user through friendship on a social media site, working for the same employer, or living near each other (paragraph [0149]), and then correlates the second user's traits with the first user's, such as preferred bands, albums, age, gender, and other traits (paragraph [O 150]). After identifying the second user with the highest matching score related to the first user, a seed is chosen for the identified related user with the highest number of media preferences (paragraph [O 155]). Thus, in this more complex embodiment, the preferences of the second user, as well as the first user, are considered in choosing a media seed. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 22-25. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 5 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 Ans. 5. (Emphasis added). Second, the Examiner correctly points out that Willis discloses different versions of the media stations based on first and second user preferences. Initially, we agree with the Examiner's findings because Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of "different versions of the media stations" in the Specification that is inconsistent with or otherwise would preclude the Examiner's construction of these terms. In paragraph [0054], Appellants' Specification discloses: [0054] Providing the receiving user with a customized version of the shared media station that is tailored to the receiving user can result in the sharing user and the receiving user being presented with different versions of the same media station, meaning that each version of the media station is generated based on the same one or more media station seeds, while being customized based on the user preference data of the respective user. Customizing the media station based on the user preference data of the user can provide each user with a different version of the shared media station that is best suited for the respective user's tastes. For example, if the receiving user's preference data indicates that the receiving user does not like a specified artist, the shared media station generated for the receiving user can be customized to exclude songs by the specified artist. Likewise, if the receiving user's preference data indicates that the receiving user likes a specified artist that the sharing user dislikes, the version of the shared media station generated for the receiving user can include media items authored by the specified artist, while the version of the shared media station provided to the sharing user can exclude media items authored by the specified artist. (Emphasis added). Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it provides context for which the terms "different versions of the media stations" are interpreted. 6 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 "In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ( citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description." (citation omitted)). Absent an express "intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art." Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Willis and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for disclosing the disputed limitations. Ans. 10-12. In particular, Examiner finds Willis discloses: the first user can share a media station based on a particular seed with friends (paragraph [0124]), and that any user, whether the first or the second, is able to provide one or more station seeds, based on preferences for an artist name, a song name, a show name, a movie name, and many other types of preferences to create a media station (paragraph [0127]). 7 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 Willis disclosure allows for much flexibility in station creation, based on one, two, or a list of users (paragraph [0122]), each of whom may provide one or more seeds, and each of whom has individual preferences (paragraph [0127]). Willis also explicitly discloses that a second user's preferences may expand the first user's play list, while still maintaining compatibility with the first user's seed and preferences (paragraph [0248]). Ans. 10-12. Thus, the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, has properly found that Willis discloses the disputed limitations, as explained above. Finally, we find Appellants' contentions in the Reply Brief about Willis' "consolidated media lists," "automatically finds users," and "two users' preferences are taken into consideration for a single playlist," to be unpersuasive because Appellants argued claims 1 and 21 do not preclude these features of Willis, and thus Appellant's arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Reply Br. 4. Consequently, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), and the Examiner'sÂ§ 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 21-25. 8 Appeal2018-007177 Application 14/267 ,808 DECISION (1) The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is affirmed. (2) The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-25 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9