Ex Parte LEWIS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 26, 2018

13735927 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
131735,927
100692 7590
Oath Inc./Finnegan
FILING DATE
01107/2013
04/30/2018
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gabriel A. LEWIS
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.
10587.0882-00000 5514
EXAMINER
SPELLMAN, DAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIEL A. LEWIS, ROY SEKOFF, MITCHELL R. SEMEL,
KIM-LEIGH PONTIN, and ADAM DENENBERG
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, 20, and 21, which constitute all
claims pending in the application. Claims 4, 12, and 19 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify AOL Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to live-streaming content, and
specifically, to "providing and dynamically updating a live-streaming and
interactive platform of video, social media, and/or web content presented
using, for example, a web browser or application device." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method for providing live-streaming online content, the
method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a series of videos
to display in a browser, the series of videos having a sequential
order;
determining, using the at least one processor, data related
to each video;
displaying, in the browser, a preview of the senes of
videos with the related data;
playing, in the browser, the senes of videos m the
sequential order;
searching, during the playing of a first video, online
content for a set of update data related to the first video, the set
of update data being generated after the playing of the first video
starts; and
displaying, in the browser, the set of update data while the
first video is playing.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 2003/0093790 Al;
May 15, 2003) ("Logan"), Maggio (US 2006/0129458 Al; June 15, 2006),
Dumais et al. (US 2004/0267730 Al; Dec. 30, 2004) ("Dumais"). Final Act.
(May 20, 2016) 3-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "searching, during the playing of a first video, online content for a
set of update data related to the first video," as recited in claim 1. 2 App.
Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds the combination of Logan and
Dumais teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 4, 6-7. On
this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
As the Examiner finds, Logan teaches a video playing in a browser
window, with the browser window also displaying an information pane
including text relating to the video. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4; see also
2 Claim 1 is representative of all claims on appeal. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); App. Br. 12 (grouping all claims with claim 1).
3
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927
Logan i-fi-1312, 319--20 (information pane 412). Dumais, in tum, teaches
automated, real-time, online searches for "related information" about content
in an application being viewed by a user (such as an email, Word document,
or Power Point document). Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 6; Dumais i-fi-126 (viewed
content includes "detected application activities, detected application
content, ... a microphone and/ or camera, ... telephone or cell phone
activity, and so forth"), 29 ("query concepts ... can be applied to
substantially any application ... interacted with by users"), 31 ("analysis
generally occurs in real time"). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine Logan's teaching of
displaying text related to a video, with Dumais' teaching of automatic online
searches and updates of information related to content being viewed. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that Dumais suggests the benefits of
avoiding "requiring users to pause work on their primary application in order
to search" for information, as taught by Logan. Id.
Appellants argue that each reference individually does not teach or
suggest the claim limitations. App. Br. 9 (Logan), 9--10 (Maggio), 10-11
(Dumais); Reply Br. 3 (Maggio), 3--4 (Dumais). Appellants do not,
however, address the Examiner's findings regarding the combination of
references and how the combination teaches the elements of claim 1.
Accordingly, because "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references," In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981), Appellants'
arguments do not persuade us of error.
Appellants further imply the Examiner used hindsight in combining
the references (App. Br. 11-12), but Appellants' argument consists only of a
4
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927
cursory recitation of the legal standards of obviousness. Id.; Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants do not identify the alleged error in the Examiner's rationale for
combining the references. We find the Examiner articulates reasoning, with
rational underpinning, for the proposed modification of Logan in view of
Maggio and Dumais. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (holding obviousness rejections must be supported by "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness"). Specifically, the Examiner reasons an ordinarily skilled
artisan would implement the modification to achieve "most recent or
relevant updates concerning the video playing" without "requiring users to
pause" their current activity. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 8. The Examiner
supports this reasoning with prior art disclosures of a video's related
information pane (Logan), dynamic generating of related information while
playing the video (Maggio), and updating related information by
automatically searching online and in real time (Dumais). See Final Act. 5
and Ans. 8 (each citing Logan i-f 320; Maggio i-f 483; Dumais i-f 29); see also
Logan i-f 319; Maggio i-f 92; Dumais i-f 31.
Appellants also argue in the Reply Brief that Dumais is not analogous
art. This argument was not raised in Appellants' Opening Brief and is not
responsive to new findings in the Answer, and thus is waived as untimely.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Even if our reviewing court were to find the
argument was timely raised, we would find the argument unpersuasive
because the claimed invention and Dumais each address a computer user's
inability to concurrently focus on a current activity and search for related
information. Spec. i-f 4; Dumais i-f 4; see also Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
5
Appeal2017-009467
Application 13/735,927
Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claimed invention and
prior art reference are analogous if directed to the same goal).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 and
claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-18, 20, and 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, 20,
and 21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6