Ex Parte Xiong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13433827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
13/433,827 03/29/2012 True Xiong 201003606.01 3879
51518 7590 03/31/2017
MAYF.R Rr WTT T TAMS PC"
EXAMINER
928 Mountain Avenue HLAING, SOE MIN
Second Floor
Mountainside, NJ 07092 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
docket @ mwpatentlaw. com
mwolf @ mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRUE XIONG, CHARLES MCCOY, and LING JUN WONG
Appeal 2017-000859
Application 13/433,8271
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN. D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to extracting media content
from social networking services (e.g., one or more social networking feeds
that contain data pertaining to a user’s social graph) and presenting the
extracted content to a user in a personalized and easy-to-consume manner.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Sony Corporation
and Sony Network Entertainment International LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000859
Application 13/433,827
See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and
is reproduced below.
1. A method for providing media content to a media content
playback device associated with a user, comprising:
i. monitoring one or more social networking feeds to
identify media content items that conform with user-defined
criteria, the user-defined criteria including tags or profile
preferences;
ii. extracting identification of media content from the
monitored social networking feeds when objects in the social
networking feed conform to the tags or profile preferences;
iii. sending the extracted identification as at least a
portion of a media content asset to a device for display to the
user;
iv. providing data to the display so that a plurality of
media content assets are arranged to indicate one or more trends
to the user; and
v. responsively to user selection of a displayed media
content asset, causing the media content to be delivered to the
media content playback device for consumption or storage.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Ketkar (US 2012/0030586 Al; published Feb. 2, 2012) and Feng et al. (US
2012/0291070 Al; published Nov. 15, 2012) (hereinafter “Feng”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, and Dudkiewicz
(US 2002/0152463 Al; published Oct. 17, 2002).
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, and Scheer (US
2013/0081084 Al; published Mar. 28, 2013).
2
Appeal 2017-000859
Application 13/433,827
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, and McQueen
(US 2011/0112975 Al; published May 12, 2011).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, and
Borggaard et al. (US 2012/0278329 Al; published Nov. 1, 2012)
(hereinafter “Borggaard”).
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, and
Shanks et al. (US 2007/0240180 Al; published Oct. 11, 2007) (hereinafter
“Shanks”).
(7) The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ketkar, Feng, Shanks, and Jin et
al. (US 2012/0158713 Al; published June 21, 2012) (hereinafter “Jin”).
ISSUE
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the combination of
Ketkar and Feng teaches or suggests monitoring social networking feeds.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ketkar and Feng, and Ketkar in particular, teaches or suggests “monitoring
one or more social networking feeds,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7;
Reply Br. 3^4. Specifically, Appellants argue Ketkar instead teaches
“receiyjdng] media recommendations from users of a social network,” rather
than “monitoring social network feeds.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3^4. In other
words, “the system of Ketkar simply passively receives recommendations”
(i.e., “wait[s] until a recommendation comes in”), and thus, “there is no need
3
Appeal 2017-000859
Application 13/433,827
to go out and monitor a user’s social networking feed.” App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 4 (citing Ketkar | 83). Appellants also argue Ketkar’s teaching of
blocking certain recommendations (e.g., blocking recommendations from
users or sites that were received previously or too frequently) likewise does
not teach or suggests “monitoring” feeds. Id. (citing Ketkar | 83).
The Examiner finds the combination, and Ketkar in particular, teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 2-4. As to claim construction, the
Examiner finds ‘“monitoring one or more social networking feeds’ is broad
enough that it can reasonably be interpreted as observing/checking/receiving
social networking feeds from social networking sites.” Ans. 3. With respect
to Ketkar, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests identifying (i.e.,
monitoring) the source of program recommendations (i.e., social networking
feeds), including identifying whether the recommendation is from someone
within the user’s social network. Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds Ketkar
teaches or suggests (i) suppressing particular recommendations that had
previously been received and (ii) presenting only recommendations from
specified users (e.g., friends), which the Examiner finds are further examples
of monitoring social network feeds. Ans. 3 (citing Ketkar || 83, 86).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Although “the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification^ . . . claims should always be read in light of the specification
and teachings in the underlying patent.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
We find one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the Specification and plain
meaning of the claim language, would have understood “monitoring” to be
an active pursuit (e.g., observing or checking). Spec. Tflf 6, 20, 44, 61
4
Appeal 2017-000859
Application 13/433,827
(monitoring can be performed continuously, or at pre-determined intervals).
We find the Examiner construes “monitoring” too broadly by including
receiving (i.e., passively waiting) within its scope. Nor has the Examiner
cited to any portion of the Specification to allow for broadening the ordinary
meaning of “monitoring.”
Accordingly, we find Ketkar’s teachings of, after receiving a
recommendation, (i) identifying its source, (ii) suppressing the
recommendation, or (iii) presenting the recommendation if conditions are
met, are not within the proper scope of the recited “monitoring.” See Ketkar
1183,86. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
also agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 6—7) that the above
reasoning also is applicable to claims 9 and 15.
Based on the evidence of record, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ketkar
and Feng teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,9, and 15. We also do not
sustain the Examiner rejections of the remaining claims on appeal — claims
2—8, 10-14, and 16—21 —because each of them depend, at least indirectly,
from claim 1, 9, or 15, and the additional references cited by the Examiner
do not remedy the deficiencies of Ketkar.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21.
REVERSED
5