Ex Parte Xiong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201713433827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation