Ex Parte Ashbrook et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

14924583 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/924,583 10/27/2015
63649 7590 05/23/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Ashbrook
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.
0260321C2 9013
EXAMINER
NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY ASHBROOK
and KYLE PRESTENBACK
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 21--40. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Disney Enterprises,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-20 were cancelled previously. App. Br. 14, Claims App'x.
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to posting messages across multiple
social networking services. Spec. 12-13, 17-18.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 21, 26, 31, and 3 6 are independent. Claim 21 is representative
and is reproduced below.
21. A device comprising:
a display; and
a processor configured to:
receive, from a user, a user selection of a message
share setting for enabling the user to post across a
plurality of social networking services;
send, to a server, the user selection of the message
share setting for enabling the user to post across
the plurality of social networking services;
play a video on the display, in response to a video
request by the user;
receive, from the user, while playing the video on
the display, a request to post across the plurality of
social networking services;
provide a dialog entry on the display, in response
to receiving the request from the user to post
across the plurality of social networking services;
receive, from the user, via the dialog entry on the
display, a message to be shared across the plurality
of social networking services; and
send, to the server, the message from the user to be
posted on the plurality of social networking
services.
Independent claims 26, 31, and 36 recite similar limitations as claim
21. App. Br. 11.
2
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
1. The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 22, 24--27, 29--32, and 34--39
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morris (US 2011/0107382 Al;
published May 5, 2011).
2. The Examiner has rejected claims 23, 28, 33, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris and Sachdeva (US
2012/0271882 Al; published Oct. 25, 2012).
ISSUE
Appellants argue, on pages 8-12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-5 of
the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections of claims 21--40 are in error.
These arguments present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding Morris discloses posting a message
to be shared across the plurality of social networking services, as
required in claim 21, and similarly required in claims 26, 31, and
36?
Did the Examiner err in finding Morris discloses a server, as
required in claim 36?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 21--40.
Rejection 1
Plurality of social networking services - Representative Claim 21
Appellants argue Morris discloses logging in to multiple social
networking services, but does not disclose posting a message to multiple
3
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583
social networking services. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue
Morris discusses posting comments to only a single rather than multiple
social networking services. Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive.
The Examiner finds Morris discloses posting a message to be shared
across the plurality of social networking services. Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Morris i-fi-124, 26, 27, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, Figs. 2, 4, 6); Ans. 2-3. In
particular, we note Morris Figures 2-5 illustrate screens depicted on a
display device for the social network interface module, which directs the
user and enables them to perform the desired functionality. Morris i125. In
particular, Figures 2 and 4, as relied upon by the Examiner, depict social
network selection and comment selection display screens on the social
network interface module. Morris Figs. 2, 4. Figure 2 depicts a social
network selection screen where a user "selects one or more social network
selections ... with which the subscriber wishes to interact." Morris i127,
Fig.2. The user then selects the next button on Figure 2 to get to the social
network program selection screen of Figure 3 and then selects next again to
get to Figure 4. Morris Figs. 2--4. Figure 4 depicts the comment selection
screen where the user can select a predetermined comment or enter a custom
comment and then select the "post selection ... to post the comment about
the selected program on the selected social network service." Morris i131,
Fig.4. The selected social network services would be the selections from
Figure 2 and, thus, we agree with the Examiner that Morris discloses "[i]n
the case where multiple services are selected ('one or more') ... the
comment is accordingly posted on all selected [social network services]."
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583
Server - Independent Claim 3 6
Further, regarding independent claim 36, Appellants argue Morris
does not disclose a server. App. Br. 11. The Examiner reasonably finds
Morris's application server 142 corresponds to the claimed server. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3. Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's
finding and is therefore unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 21, 26, 31, and 36. Claims 22,
24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 37-39 depend from one of claims 21, 26,
31, and 36. App. Br. 11. Appellants do not present separate arguments for
claims 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 37-39. App. Br. 11. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35,
and 37-39 for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 21, 26, 31, and
36.
Rejection 2
Appellants argue Sachdeva fails to teach or suggest posting a message
to be shared across the plurality of social networking services, as required in
the independent claims from which dependent claims 23, 28, 33, and 40
depend. App. Br. 12. Appellants' argument is not persuasive, because the
Examiner relies on Morris (not Sachdeva) to teach the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 3--4. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that Morris fails to disclose posting a message to be shared across
the plurality of social networking services. As such, Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 23, 28, 33, and 40,
and we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
5
Appeal2017-011532
Application 14/924,583
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 21--40 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6