Ex Parte Systrom et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2019

13829117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/829, 117 03/14/2013 Kevin Systrom
107193 7590 05/30/2019
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
19487.359 6081
EXAMINER
STOLTENBERG, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2019 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@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tmeid@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN SYSTROM and AMY COLE
Appeal 2018-002881
Application 13/829,117
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "the field of online advertising, and more
specifically to a new and useful method for linking images in social feeds to
branded content in the field of online advertising." Specification ,-J2.
Appeal 2018-002881
Application 13/829,117
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
loading an image to a social networking system comprising one or
more servers;
receiving, by the one or more servers, a first tag comprising an
identification of a first item visible in a first region of the image;
associating, by the one or more servers, the first tag with the first
region of the image;
based on the first tag, correlating, by the one or more servers, the first
item with a first product;
in response to correlating the first item with the first product, adding,
by the one or more servers, the image to a first social networking feed for
the first product within the social networking system, the first social
networking feed including a plurality of images associated with the first
product;
providing, by the one or more servers, to a first user interested in the
first product, the first social networking feed including the image;
in response to a selection of the first region of the image by the first
user, presenting, by the one or more servers, to the first user, a first
electronic storefront that facilitates purchase of the first product;
receiving, by the one or more servers, a second tag comprising an
identification of a second item visible in a second region of the image;
associating, by the one or more servers, the second tag with the
second region of the image; and
based on the second tag, correlating, by the one or more servers, the
second item with a second product.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent Application Publication
2013/0226711 Al; published August 29, 2013) and Botchen (US Patent 9,
251,395 Bl; issued February 2, 2016). Non-final Action 3-15.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Botchen and Desjardins (US Patent
8,296,291 Bl; issued October 23, 2012). Non-final Action 15-21.
2
Appeal 2018-002881
Application 13/829,117
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Botchen, Desjardins and Davis (US Patent
Application Publication 2012/0208592 Al; published August 16, 2012).
Non-final Action 21-23.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Botchen and Carlson (US Patent Application
Publication 2009/0327151 Al; published December 31, 2009). Non-final
Action 24-25.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed August 11, 2017), the Reply Brief ( filed
January 24, 2018), the Answer (mailed November 24, 2017) and the Non-
final Action (mailed January 12, 2017).
Appellants argue, "The independent claims recite a specific action-
adding an image to a social networking feed for a product in response to
correlating a tagged item in the image with the product" and the
Wu/Butchen combination does not disclose this "element." See Appeal
Brief 9-11. Appellants argue:
Botchen describes automatically tagging objects in a photo with
"an identifying tag" and creating "an indication of affinity or
association with the object." Id col. 2 11. 62-66; id col. 411. 29-
33. But merely associating or linking a logo or name brand in a
photo with a social network page differs from adding an image
to a social networking feed. While Botchen 's association may
create a link between objects in a social network, the pending
independent claims require more. The independent claims recite
a specific action-adding an image to a social networking feed for
a product in response to correlating a tagged item in the image
with the product.
Appeal Brief 11.
3
Appeal 2018-002881
Application 13/829,117
The Examiner determines, "The limitation is interpreted to claim the
operation consisting of, once a region or object within an image has been
tagged or codified with information such as descriptive information or
metadata describing the object or region, i.e., such as a product description,
the computing system automatically assigns the image to a related feed or
listing of product related images." Answer 3-4. However, the Examiner
finds that Wu discloses displaying images in a social network feed and
"Botchen discloses the display of information on company or business pages
of a social network, at least at column 5, lines 11-12, as recited 'a
company/business page,' and at least at column 5, lines 40-44, as recited, 'an
entity in the social network system ( e.g., business page, brand page, fan
page, movie page, event page, community page, etc.)."' Answer 4.
Therefore, the Examiner determines:
it would have been obvious for Wu to in response to correlating
the first item with the first product, add the image to a first social
networking feed for the first product within the social networking
system and provide to a first user interested in the first product,
the first social networking feed including the image as per the
steps ofBotchen to enable convenient and easy posting of tagged
images to a social feed aimed toward the promotion of a
particular branded product, and thereby potentially increasing
the focus on the branded product, and increasing purchases of the
product.
Non-final Action 7.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive of Examiner error
because Botchen discloses adding tagged content to a social network or
website wherein Botchen discloses, "[t]he other entity may be another user,
an advertisement, a company/business page, etc. A social signal generally
expresses a user's interests, and may be used to suggest or link the user to
other entities within the social network system." Botchen, column 5, lines
4
Appeal 2018-002881
Application 13/829,117
11-15. Botchen further discloses, "A social signal may also be used outside
of a social network system. For example, system 102 may use a social
signal to trigger customized advertisements ( e.g., content advertisements,
text advertisements, etc.) on other websites." Botchen, column 5, lines 15-
19. Additionally, Wu discloses adding tagged content in a social network
feed; accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to add the tagged content automatically as claimed, in view of Wu and
Botchen. See Answer 4; Non-final Action 4-5; see also In re Venner, 262
F.2d at 95 ("[I]t is well settled that it is not 'invention' to broadly provide a
mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has
accomplished the same result."); see also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 2 l 44(IV).
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 15,
and 20 is sustained, as well as, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 not argued
separately. See Appeal Brief 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
5