Appeal 2007-2021
Application 09/790,726
media player 116 responsive to the user’s request (Wiser, col. 14, l. 36 - col.
16, l. 25; Figs. 7 and 8).
In our view, Wiser’s electronic music distribution system fully meets
every limitation of claim 23 except for the uploaded media data file being a
SMIL file. In Wiser, the HTML file that is displayed in the user’s browser
at the beginning of the preview process “corresponds,” at least in part, to the
uploaded media data file. When uploaded media data files are included in
the media information database, these media data files are made available
for previewing. As such, these media data files are included in an HTML
file that is ultimately displayed in the user’s browser.2 In short, the content
of this HTML file corresponds to the media data files that are uploaded to
the system.3
Although the media data files of Wiser are not SMIL files, we find
that designating the file recited in claim 23 as an “SMIL file” merely
describes the format of the data stored in the file. Because this data format
limitation does not further limit the file itself either functionally or
structurally, it essentially constitutes non-functional descriptive material.
Such non-functional descriptive material, however, does not patentably
distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See
In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2 See Wiser, Fig. 8 (showing web page in user’s browser with links to
preview media files).
3 Although not pertinent to representative claim 23, but rather independent
claim 1, we add that this HTML file would have reasonably been stored in a
database in Wiser’s system since its content depends on the media data files
that are likewise stored in a database (i.e., the media information database).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013