Ex Parte Voynow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 2016

13552548 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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. 13/552,548 07/18/2012 Gregory I. Voynow ADBLE.020P1 8180 79502 7590 12/29/2016 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP (SEAZN) (AMAZON) 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 EXAMINER RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): jayna.cartee@knobbe.com efiling @ knobbe. com S E AZN. Admin @ knobbe .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY I. VOYNOW and GUY A. STORY JR. Appeal 2016-001184 Application 13/552,548 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIVANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—27, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Audible, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001184 Application 13/552,548 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to managing decoupled companion content so that it can be synchronized. Spec. 121. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing synchronized content, the computer- implemented method comprising: under control of one or more computing devices configured with specific executable instructions, obtaining content synchronization information for synchronizing presentation of a first content of a first format and a second content of a second format, wherein the content synchronization information indicates at least one disparity in substance between the first content and second content, and wherein the first content obtained separately from the second content; determining that a user has halted consumption of the first content using a consuming computing device; determining that the user has begun consumption using the consuming computing device of a third content of the second format within a predefined period of time after determining that a user has halted consumption of the first content using the consuming computing device; transmitting a notification to a computing device associated with the user indicating the availability of the second content, the notification corresponding to an offer to acquire the second content; 2 Appeal 2016-001184 Application 13/552,548 receiving an acceptance of the offer by the user; determining at least a portion of the second content based at least in part on the content synchronization information and a halt position of user within the first content; and transmitting the determined at least one portion of the second content to the computing device associated with the user. The Rejections Claims 1—4, 8—13, 16—20, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locker et al. (US 2011/0231474 Al; Sept. 22, 2011), Roche et al. (US 2007/0136459 Al; June 14, 2007), and Linden (US 6,912,505 B2; June 28, 2005). Claims 5—7, 14, 15, and 21—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Locker, Roche, Linden, and Baird-Smith (US 2008/0294453 Al; Nov. 27,2008). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 20 recites, in relevant part, “obtaining] content synchronization information . . . wherein the content synchronization information indicates at least one disparity in substance” between a first and second content. The Examiner rejects each independent claim relying on Linden as meeting the claimed content synchronization information. In particular, the Examiner finds Linden’s “content based filtering and [the claimed] synchronization are synonymous.” Final Act. 4, 8,11 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner elaborates: 3 Appeal 2016-001184 Application 13/552,548 Linden teaches that “collaborative filtering” (See Linden, Col.[ ]1, [i]n 50-70) is equivalent act of synchronization (i.e. [,] representing items to indicate coexistence) of two content items with a disparity. Two user profiles (i.e.[,] content items including a list of user’s favorite items) are compared to find similar users by mapping (i.e.[,] delineating) matching items on the two lists, and resulting in synchronized information (i.e. [,] representing items that both user’s rated highly) that notes at least one disparity between the users (i.e.[,]items that one but not the other user has not rated, is recommended). Put simply, Linden teaches that two users lists as arranged are mapped as closely as possible by their coincidences (i.e.[,] synchronized), and disparity information between the two lists (i.e.[.] the content) is used to recommend new items between the users. Ans. 3. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the Examiner’s findings do not meet the plain claim language. App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants. We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where, as here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be given its ordinary meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner offers no support for the finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of content synchronization information encompasses “representing items to indicate coexistence.” We additionally observe that a relevant technical dictionary defines “synchronization” in pertinent part as: 3. In a computer, the matching of timing between components of the computer so that all are 4 Appeal 2016-001184 Application 13/552,548 coordinated. For instance, operations performed by the operating system are generally synchronized with the signals of the machine’s internal clock. See also clock (definition 1), operating system. 4. In application or database files, version comparisons of copies of the files to ensure they contain the same data. 5. In multimedia, precise real-time processing. Audio and video are transmitted over a network in synchronization so that they can be played back together without delayed responses. Microsoft Computer Dictionary 506 (5th ed. 2002). Thus, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Linden’s “content-based” comparison of various users’ favorite web pages or Linden’s collaborative filtering, which makes recommendations “without any analysis of item content” (Linden, 1:54), as teaching or suggesting the claimed content synchronization information indicating a disparity between a first and second content. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 20, nor the rejection of their dependent claims 2-8, 10-19, and 21-27. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—27. REVERSED 5