AiBUY, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2021

2020005036 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2021)

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.
14/484,047 09/11/2014 Robert K. Spitz CINS-005/03US
326663-2037
1098
58249 7590 02/03/2021
COOLEY LLP
ATTN: IP Docketing Department
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
RETTA, YEHDEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2021 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):
zIPPatentDocketingMailboxUS@cooley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT K. SPITZ, CHRISTIAN BRIGGS,
and TODD DOWNING
____________

Appeal 2020-0050361
Application 14/484,047
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–25, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed March 6, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
June 24, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 24, 2020)
and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 18, 2019).
2 Appellant identifies “AIBUY Inc.,” as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “dynamically binding
supplemental content to a content transactional item,” and “includes
identifying the content transactional item at a device and identifying a
description related to the content transactional item.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed matter added, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A processor-implemented method for dynamically binding
supplemental electronic content to a content transactional item
in a shareable media container, the method comprising:
[a] capturing, at a first compute device, a base media
content associated with a content transactional item that is
being offered for sale at a store;
[b] identifying a description related to the content
transactional item using a location of the store offering the
content transactional item and a location of the first compute
device where the base media content is captured;
[c] obtaining supplemental electronic content based on
the description, the supplemental electronic content providing
additional information about the content transactional item at
the store; and
[d] dynamically binding the supplemental electronic
content to the base media content associated with content
transactional item to form a shareable media container allowing
sharing of the base media content and the supplemental
electronic content together from the first compute device to at
least one second compute device, the shareable media
container, when shared to the at least one second compute
device, configured to:
[e] render the shareable media container on a
graphical display of the at least one second compute device;
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

3
[f] present the base media content within the
shareable media container;
[g] display the supplemental electronic content
within the shareable media container; and
[h] provide an interface within the shareable media
container, the interface configured to allow a user associated
with the at least one second compute device to complete a
transaction associated with the content transactional item
without leaving the shareable media container.

REJECTIONS
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Klein (US 2014/0108111 A1, pub. Apr. 17, 2014).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Klein and Liu (US 2014/0254942 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2014).
Claims 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Klein and Mallinson (US 2011/0247042 A1, pub. Oct. 6, 2011).
Claims 1–25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,875,489 B2.
Claims 1–25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,953,347 B2.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The Examiner takes the position that because “claim 1
recites capturing a base media at a first device it is unclear how the captured
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

4
media content at the first device, is also streamed at the first device from
streaming server. It is unclear if the base media content is a captured content
(image object) or streamed content.” Final Act. 3. We disagree.
Instead, we agree with Appellant that “claim 23, which recites ‘the
base media content includes video content further comprising: streaming, at
the first device, the video content from a streaming service,’ is clear on its
face when read in conjunction with claim 1, which recites ‘capturing, at a
first device, a base media content.’” Appeal Br. 13. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the
Specification (including the claim language) what is being claimed, namely
that “the capturing a base media content recited in claim 1 can be performed
by streaming video content from a streaming service.” Id.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The test for definiteness under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
[S]pecification.”).
Anticipation
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–5 and 7
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because Klein
fails to disclose “provid[ing] an interface within the shareable media
container . . . configured to allow a user associated with the at least one
second compute device to complete a transaction associated with the content
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

5
transactional item without leaving the shareable media container,” as recited
by limitation [h] of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner maintains the rejection is proper, and cites
paragraphs 56–68 of Klein, as disclosing the argued limitation. See Final
Act. 5–6. In the Examiner’s Answer, although the Examiner does not
specifically address the argued limitation, the Examiner generally cites to
paragraphs 30–33, 39–42, and 70, along with Figure 3, as disclosing the
subject matter of independent claim 1. See Ans. 3–4.
Klein is directed to “a mobile advertising system providing
advertising to potential customers via a network.” Klein ¶ 1. Klein
discloses that its system may include a smart phone “to capture the
graphically displayed and encoded vending details.” Id. ¶ 12. More
particularly, Klein discloses that
[b]y means of the visual capturing (e.g. by scanning the
merchant's encoded vending details), respective data and
information about a product, a service and/or about a particular
shop or service provider can be almost automatically obtained
and further processed by the mobile device in order to generate
a transferable recommendation.
Id. ¶ 9; see also id. ¶ 13 (“The additional information typically relates to a
product, to a service, or to a merchant’s shop in general.”). According to
Klein, the additional information is “presented to the user via the mobile
device in a readable and decoded format so that the user can be informed
about the additional shop-, product- or service-related information prior to a
creation and/or distribution of the recommendation to other potential
customers.” Id. ¶ 14.
Klein further discloses that captured vending details are submitted “to
the advertisement service . . . to receive additional information either from a
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

6
database of the advertisement service or from various other information
sources, such as a search engine used or operated by the advertisement
service.” Id. ¶ 31. And, in response, Klein discloses “generat[ing] a
transferable and electronic message-based recommendation . . . to provide a
sharing or distributing functionality to the user of the mobile device” that is
“not only indicative of the additional information retrieved from the
advertisement service, but also includes at least an identifier of the
recommending user, which is typically subscribed to the advertisement
service.” Id. ¶ 32. According to Klein, “[t]his way, electronic
recommendations to be transferred among users of a social network may
uniquely correspond to a recommendation-generating user for assigning a
respective commission to the user when the recommendation-receiving
potential customer follows the respective recommendation (e.g. by
purchasing a product or service from the recommended merchant).” Id.
¶ 33.
According to Klein, “to create a recommendation 36 the software
application 40 comprises a request module 42 by way of which the captured
vending details 16 can be at least partially transferred to the advertisement
service 20.” Id. ¶ 55. And, “[i]n response to such a request, the
advertisement service provides additional information regarding the
particular shop 13” and this “additional information is then returned to the
mobile device 24 and is processed by a link generator 44.” Id. ¶ 56. Once
the addition information is returned to the mobile device 24, link generator
44 “prepare[s] a hyperlink to be embedded into the recommendation 36.”
Id. ¶ 57. Klein notes that because “the recommendation 36 typically
comprises a hyperlink it can be easily tracked when a follower or potential
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

7
customer 32, 34 follows said hyperlink.” Id. ¶ 58. Klein further discloses,
however, that “[w]hen the potential customer 32 follows the
recommendation 36 he will be automatically forwarded to a web page or a
shop of the merchant 12.” Id. ¶ 59.
We have reviewed the cited portions of Klein, and agree with
Appellant that none of the cited portions of Klein discloses limitation [h] of
independent claim 1. In making this determination, we note that limitation
[h] requires an “interface configured to allow a user associated with the at
least one second compute device to complete a transaction associated with
the content transactional item without leaving the shareable media
container” (emphasis added). To address this limitation, in the Final Action,
the Examiner simply cites to paragraphs 56–68 of Klein without any
explanation. Final Act. 6. The Examiner appears to rely on Klein’s
disclosure of “recommendation link (selectable link)” as disclosing “a
sharable media container.” See Final Act. 5 (“[T]o form a shareable media
container ( . . . in order to generate a transferable recommendation).”);
Ans. 4; see also Klein ¶ 57 (Once the addition information is returned to the
mobile device 24, link generator 44 “prepare[s] a hyperlink to be embedded
into the recommendation 36.”). However, we do not see, and the Examiner
does not explain adequately where Klein discloses allowing a user at a
second computing device “to complete a transaction associated with the
content transactional item without leaving the shareable media container,” as
required by limitation [h].
Instead, we agree with Appellant that Klein discloses just the
opposite. Appeal Br. 9. In this regard, Klein discloses that “[w]hen the
potential customer 32 follows the recommendation 36 he will be
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

8
automatically forwarded to a web page or a shop of the merchant 12.” Klein
¶ 59. Thus, we agree with Appellant that “being forwarded to a web page or
shop of a merchant is antithetical to completing transactions without leaving
a media container” (Appeal Br. 9), and as such, we agree with Appellant that
Klein fails to disclose the argued limitation.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Klein.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2–5 and 7, which ultimately depend from independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 9–12, 14, and 16–20
Independent claims 8 and 15 include limitations substantially similar
to independent claim 1’s limitation [h] discussed above, and the Examiner
relies on the same rationale in rejecting independent claims 8 and 15. See
Final Act. 5. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 9–12, 14, and 16–20,
which depend therefrom, respectively, for the same reasons set forth above
with respect to independent claim 1.
Obviousness
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 21–25
Claims 6, 13, and 21–25 depend, directly or indirectly, from
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus, incorporate limitation [h] recited
in independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections with respect to Liu, in
combination with Klein, as applied to claims 6 and 13, and Mallinson, in
combination with Klein, as applied to claims 21–25, do not cure the above-
discussed shortcomings of Klein identified by Appellant. Thus, we do not
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

9
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 6, 13, and 21–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
independent claim 1.
Non-statutory Obvious-type Double Patenting
The Examiner rejected claims 1–25 on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No.
9,875,489. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also rejected claims 1–25 on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1–21
of U.S. Patent No. 9,953,347. Id.
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s double patenting
rejections. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. Therefore, the double
patenting rejection is summarily sustained.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23 112(b) Indefiniteness 23
1–5, 7–12,
14–20
102(a)(2) Klein 1–5, 7–12,
14–20
6, 13 103(a) Klein, Liu 6, 13
21–25 103(a) Klein, Mallinson 21–25
1–25 Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
(US 9,875,489 B2)
1–25
1–25 Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
(US 9,953,347 B2)
1–25
Overall
Outcome
1–25
Appeal 2020-005036
Application 14/484,047

10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED