Ex Parte Inayatullah et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201714502749 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/502,749 09/30/2014 Azfar Inayatullah 311062-1 (NBCU:0113) 3410 12640 7590 11/22/2017 NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. PO Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER ALAM, MUSHFIKH I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AZFAR INAYATULLAH, SANJAY MACWAN, and SOWMYA GOTTIPATI (Applicant: NBCUniversal Media, LLC) ____________ Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims of the application. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention According to Appellants, the invention relates to “providing digital content to a target audience.” Spec. ¶ 5.1 Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 7 are representative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method for providing digital content to a target audience, comprising: monitoring audience-related data indicative of a specific target audience as an indication of potential interests of the target audience; monitoring device-related data indicative of a content playback device available to the target audience, the device- related data being collected with respect to a plurality of different devices available to the target audience; referencing content-related data related to available content; determining whether any element of available content matches the target audience based upon the audience-related data and the device-related data; prioritizing a particular one of the plurality of different devices available to the target audiences based upon the content- related data, the audience-related data, the device-related data, or any combination thereof; and 1 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed September 30, 2014 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 29, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October 31, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 2, 2017; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 3, 2017. Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 3 providing, at the prioritized particular one of the plurality of different devices, a selected element of the available content based upon a match of the content-related data and upon the audience-related data and the device-related data. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the audience- related data or the device-related data comprises data indicative of whether the target audience is currently using a specific playback device. Appeal Br. 16–17. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 7–9, 11–13, 15–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cox et al. (US 2013/0254787 A1; published Sept. 26, 2013), Roberts et al. (US 2012/0304233 A1; published Nov. 29, 2012) and Kunjithapatham et al. (US 8,510,737 B2; published Aug. 13, 2013). Final Act. 2–6. Claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cox, Roberts, and Kunjithapatham, and Hardy (US 2014/0165094 A1; published June 12, 2014). Final Act. 6–8. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.39(a)(1). Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 4 ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence presented. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action (2–8) from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer (2–9) in response to Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Rejection of Claims 1–4, 7–9, 11–13, 15–18, and 20 Under § 103 The Examiner finds the combination of Cox and Kunjithapatham teaches or suggests “prioritizing a particular one of the plurality of different devices available to the target audiences based upon the content-related data, the audience-related data, the device-related data, or any combination thereof,” as recited in representative claim 1. Final Act. 11. Appellants argue Kunjithapatham “facilitates prioritization of tasks available through the devices in a home network” (Appeal Br. 9) and “the examiner’s position that the prioritized tasks per device of Kunjithapatham is analogous to prioritized devices, is clearly erroneous” (Appeal Br. 10). We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Kunjithapatham discloses prioritization of a particular device and task based on a score.” Ans. 4. That is, we agree that by providing a score for each individual device, Kunjithapatham teaches prioritizing a device. Namely, Kunjithapatham’s Task Generation module 70 calculates and provides “scores for individual devices that make-up the task (e.g., devicel (score 100), device2 (score 7), etc.), to the Prioritization Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 5 module 64” to determine task scores. Kunjithapatham 5:13–20. Although Kunjithapatham’s device rankings are secondary to the task rankings argued by Appellants, Kunjithapatham still describes prioritizing devices to determine the correct device for a given task. For example, Kunjithapatham states “[w]ithin that score level, the items are ranked on secondary factors such as device scores. As such, the best devices appear first for the level of contextual match (i.e., those matching fully the policy for that level may be ranked higher than others that match only part of the policy).” Kunjithapatham 4:19–25 (emphasis added). Although we agree with Appellants that Kunjithapatham describes prioritization of a device in the context of performing a particular task, Appellants fail to persuasively establish why this does not teach or suggest “prioritizing a particular one of the plurality of different devices,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds Cox teaches or suggests “providing, at the prioritized particular one of the plurality of different devices, a selected element of the available content,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Cox ¶¶ 31, 111–115). Specifically, the Examiner finds Cox’s “ability to recognize a powered on device makes this device a priority (vs. a device that is powered off). Thus, Cox’s device-related data, is indeed, a basis for providing content to a prioritized device.” Ans. 8. Appellants argue “Cox’s supposed device-related data (e.g., whether the device is powered on) is not a basis for providing content ‘at the prioritized particular one of the plurality of different devices,’ as recited by the independent claims.” Appeal Br. 11. “Indeed, the examiner has not provided any indication where content is provided to a prioritized one of a plurality of device, based upon the power on determination.” Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 6 We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cox teaches, or at least suggests, “providing, at the prioritized particular one of the plurality of different devices, a selected element of the available content,” as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 3); namely by “select[ing] ads for delivery” to a prioritized device, i.e., a device that is determined as being “on” (Cox ¶ 31). Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness and so we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of representative independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 17, which recite similar limitations and are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 8. Dependent claims 2–4, 7– 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are not argued separately, and thus, fall with their respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 8–13. Rejection of Claims 7 and 15 Under § 103 The Examiner finds Cox teaches or suggests “wherein the audience- related data or the device-related data comprises data indicative of whether the target audience is currently using a specific playback device,” as recited in claim 7. Final Act. 5 (citing Cox ¶ 31). Appellants argue “Cox’s disclosure of powered on information does not teach or suggest the current recitation of ‘data indicative of whether the target audience is currently using a specific playback device,’ as recited by claim[] 7.” Appeal Br. 13. We are unpersuaded because Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the specific findings made by the Examiner. That is, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Cox discloses “[t]he noted utility may also be operative to Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 7 determine whether the user equipment device is ‘on’ and to determine whether any user is present at the user equipment device.’” Ans. 9 (citing Cox ¶ 31). Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings in the Reply Brief and so have not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 7. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, which recite similar limitations and is argued together with claim 7. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 19 Under § 103 Appellants urge reversal of the rejection of claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 17 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, because “Hardy, cited in the rejection of claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 17, does not obviate the deficiencies of Cox.” Appeal Br. 13. As discussed above, however, we are not persuaded that Cox is deficient. Because we find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 17. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellants have not shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Appeal 2017-007796 Application 14/502,749 8 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation