Ex Parte Trotto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2014

11563965 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte LAUREEN A. TROTTO, MAUREEN T. TROTTO,
ROBER A. RUGINIS, and ROBERT W. JEFFWAY, JR.
__________

Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
interactive multimedia diary. The Examiner rejected the claims on the
grounds of anticipation and obviousness. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Mattel, Inc. (see
App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
The invention disclosed in the Specification relates to an interactive
multimedia diary system. The Specification notes that “[t]raditionally,
diaries have been recorded by hand and kept as a paper journal” and “are
used to record events, keep personal reminders, and reflect on
accomplishments and life in general” (Spec. ¶ [0002]). In one embodiment
of the invention, “the system prompts a user for input based on input
previously entered” (id. ¶ [0009]). “For example, the system scans input
text for keywords, such as verbs associated with common activities,
previously used or new names, locations, or any other suitable concepts and
prompts the user for more information. The prompt can be associated with
previous input or responses.” (Id.)
The Claims
Claims 1-11, 14-16, 24-26, and 29-34 are on appeal. Independent
claim 1 is representative of the issues on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A portable electronic diary comprising:
a housing;
a display device coupled to the housing;
a memory device; and
a processor operable with the display device and memory
device to enable a user to input a diary entry, analyze the diary
entry using a set of keyword information, prompt the user to
associate additional information with the diary entry based on the
keyword information, modify the set of keyword information in
response to the additional information entered by the user for
analysis of a subsequent diary entry, and display the diary entry
and an indicator of the additional information as a page of a diary.

Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

3
The Issues

The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows:
I. Claims 11, 24-26, 29, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shiota.2
II. Claims 14-16 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Shiota and Van Der
Meer.3
III. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Shiota and Lo.4
IV. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Shiota and Finke-Anlauff
’066.5
V. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Shiota and Finke-Anlauff ’066, as
further combined with Hamasaki.6
VI. Claims 1, 11, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Finke-Anlauff ’3747 and
Kang.8

2 Shiota et al., US 2004/0064338 A1, published Apr. 1, 2004.
3 Van Der Meer et al., US 6,415,316 B1, issued Jul. 2, 2002.
4 Lo et al., US 2006/0184566 A1, published Aug. 17, 2006.
5 Finke-Anlauff et al., US 2005/0138066 A1, published Jun. 23,
2005.
6 Hamasaki et al., US 5,717,820, issued Feb. 10, 1998.
7 Finke-Anlauff et al., US 2005/0105374 A1, published May 19,
2005.
8 Kang et al., US 6,741,994 B1, issued May 25, 2004.
App
App

F
F
“
[0
F
eal 2012-0
lication 11
F1. Sh
ge
tri
“d
da
ro
F2. FI
FIG. 7 sh
056]).
F3. Sh
Th
destinati
time of a
of travel
and 13F,
03892
/563,965
iota disclo
nerating a
p wherein
eparture p
te/time,” a
ute data ge
G. 7 of Sh
ows a trav
iota disclo
e user inp
on, the dat
rrival, a po
into the in
respective
4
FIND
ses a met
n album o
a user ma
oint,” a “f
nd an “arr
neration s
iota is rep
el route da
ses:
uts the dep
e and time
int travele
put boxes 1
ly. Note th
INGS OF
hod and an
f images p
y input inf
inal destin
ival date/t
creen” (Sh
roduced be
ta generat
arture poin
of departur
d through,
3A, 13B,
at as the m
FACT
apparatus
hotograph
ormation,
ation,” a “
ime,” in a
iota [0089
low:
ion screen
t, the final
e, the date
and the me
13C, 13D,
ethod of
for
ed during
including
departure
“travel
]).
” (Shiota

and
thod
13E,
a
a

Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

5
travel, various travel methods, such as “on foot”, “by
rail”, “by automobile”, “by ship”, and “by airplane”,
etc. may be input. As methods of travel are limited, a
plurality of travel method may be displayed, each with a
check box. The method of travel may be input by
checking one of the plurality of check boxes.

(Shiota [0090].)
FF4. Shiota states that if the method of travel is “by rail,” the
station at which the user boarded the train, and the station
at which the user got off the train can be determined by
using train route search software. (Shiota ¶ [0094].) The
software can be used to determine desired positions along
the travel route as well. Similarly, if travel is “by
automobile,” the travel route and the times of passage
through desired positions along the travel route can be
determined by taking into consideration the average
travel speed of automobiles (id.).
FF5. Shiota also discloses that an “album generation server 33
generates travel route data representing the travel route of
the user by performing calculations employing software,
train schedules and the like stored in the storage means
31, based on the input data” (id. ¶ [0095]).
FF6. Shiota discloses that a user can select image data sets to
be included in the album data (id. ¶ [0102]).
FF7. Shiota discloses that, when a user clicks a desired
position on the map, “[t]he clicked position data is
received at the album generation support server” and
App
App

FF8.
eal 2012-0
lication 11
“[t]hi
click
31 an
[0107
FIG.
“As
album
is ind
that r
03892
/563,965
rd party im
ed on the m
d transmit
]).
12 of Shio
shown in F
display f
icated by
epresent p
6
age sets c
ap are rea
ted to the
ta is repro
IG. 12, in
rame 17A
a bold line
hotograph
orrespond
d out from
personal c
duced belo
the album
, a travel r
on a map
y location
ing to the
the stora
omputer 2
w:
displaye
oute 18B o
18A, and
s of the im
position
ge means
” (id. ¶
d in the
f the user
icons 18C
age data

Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

7
sets S0 are attached along the travel route 18B” (Shiota ¶
[0119]).
FF9. Kang discloses an electronic organizer that includes an
“ORGANIZE DATA step 306” wherein “the application
parses the input data to break the input data up into
respective fields of one or more record types” (Kang, col.
6, ll. 32-34).
FF10. Kang further discloses:
If the application is unable to recognize any record in
the input data 402 or the fields present in a recognized
record is insufficient to render the record meaningful, as
determined in the RECOGNIZED DATA? step 312, the
sequence returns to the ACCEPT INPUT step 304 and
prompts the user that there is insufficient data to define
any meaningful record. A record is considered
meaningful if it contains a minimal set of fields.

(Kang, col. 6, ll. 36-44.)
FF11. Kang discloses:
The application 213 allows the user to modify the
information 510 or to rearrange the information 510
according to what the user deems fit for storage into a
database in an ACCEPT CONFIRMATION step 316. . .
. When the user is finished with the modification, the
user selects either the store button 506 or the cancel
button 508.

(Kang, col. 6, l. 58 – col. 7, l. 4.)
FF12. Kang discloses that “[t]he application subsequently
makes a separate write to database API call to write the
modified contact record to the contact database 218”
Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

8
(Kang, col. 7, ll. 16-18).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 11, 24-26, 29, and 32-34 Based on
Shiota

The Examiner asserts that Shiota anticipates claims 11, 24-26, 29, and
32-34 based on its disclosure of an album that allows users to input travel
information, select images to be included with an album, and generate an
album by correlating the image data sets with a map (Ans. 11-16; FF1-8).
With respect to this anticipation rejection, Appellants argue that the
Examiner failed to properly interpret the claim term “keywords,” and that
“Shiota does not utilize a ‘set of keyword information’ and in particular,
Shiota fails to conduct any analysis of entered data using a set of keyword
information” (App. Br. 9-15). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has not established that Shiota discloses the use of a “set of keyword
information” in the manner claimed, even under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that claim language.
The Examiner broadly interprets the term “keyword” as “a word
describing something” in view of the Specification’s disclosure that “the
system scans input text for keywords, such as verbs associated with common
activities, previously used or new names, locations, or any other suitable
concepts and prompts the user for more information” (Ans. 33; Spec.
¶ [0009]). While we agree that a keyword can be any descriptive word used
for data analysis, each of the independent claims also expressly require that
the set of keyword information must be modified in response to additional
data input by the user. Claim 11 further requires the capability to “retrieve
Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

9
additional information based on the modified set of keyword information”
(Cl. 11). Claim 33 recites “modifying the set of keyword information to
create a new set of keyword information in response to the additional
information entered by the user for analysis of a subsequent diary entry” (Cl.
33). The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Shiota that satisfies
these requirements.
The Examiner asserts that the claim limitations for “modify[ing] the
set of keyword information” are satisfied by the teaching in Shiota that
“information is modified by including the images with the data” (Ans.
11-13, 15). However, the cited portions of Shiota only disclose the
correlation of image data with points on a map. At most, this disclosure in
Shiota teaches the modification of image data included on a map. We find
that this does not teach the modification of “a set of keyword information.”
Moreover, we find nothing in the Shiota to suggest the retrieval of additional
information based on a modified set of keyword information, or that a
modified set of keyword information can be used for analysis of a
subsequent diary entry. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.”)
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based
on the teachings of Shiota.

Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

10
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-16, and 30-31 Based
on the Combination of Shiota and Other References

The Examiner has also rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-16, and 30-31 for
obviousness based on the combination of Shiota with other references.
Independent claim 1, which is rejected based on the combination of Shiota
and Finke-Anlauff ’066, also requires a processor configured to “modify the
set of keyword information in response to the additional information entered
by the user for analysis of a subsequent diary entry” in a manner similar to
the modifying step recited in claim 33. For each of these obviousness
rejections, the Examiner relies upon the same teachings of Shiota to assert
that the requirement for the modification of a set of keyword information is
taught or suggested by the prior art. As discussed above, we find that Shiota
does not teach the modification of a set of keyword information or the use of
modified keyword information in the manner claimed.
Because the Examiner does not rely upon the additional references to
make up for the deficiencies with respect to Shiota, we also reverse the
obviousness rejections based on the combination of Shiota and other
references.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 33 Based on the
Combination of Finke-Anlauff ’374 and Kang

The Examiner has further rejected claims 1, 11, and 33 for
obviousness based on the combination of Finke-Anlauff ’374 and Kang.
The Examiner acknowledges that Finke-Anlauff ’374 does not teach the
claim limitations requiring “keyword information,” but asserts that those
requirements are satisfied by the disclosure in Kang (Ans. 27-30). In
Appeal 2012-003892
Application 11/563,965

11
particular, the Examiner relies upon Kang’s disclosure of a data organization
application that parses data input by a user into different fields and allows
the user to modify the information before being stored into a database (FF9-
12). The Examiner appears to rely upon data input by the user to satisfy the
“keyword” requirement of the claims. The Examiner, however, does not
explain how Kang discloses “modify[ing] the set of keyword information . . .
for analysis of a subsequent diary entry” (claims 1 and 33), or “retriev[ing]
additional information based on the modified set of keyword information”
(claim 11). Kang discloses the capability to modify user input before it is
stored, but this does not teach or suggest the use of modified keyword
information for subsequent analysis or the retrieval of additional
information. The Examiner does not provide any rationale to further modify
Kang to achieve those capabilities.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not made a prima
facie showing of obviousness, and reverse this rejection as well.
SUMMARY
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

cdc