FashionLoyal Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020002504 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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.
15/698,175 09/07/2017 Sai Kong FASH 3262A 4473
61624 7590 08/02/2021
GRAHAM CURTIN, P.A.
C/O MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 SOUTH JEFFERSON ROAD
SUITE 202
WHIPPANY, NJ 07981-1009
EXAMINER
LU, KUEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
PATENT@MYERSWOLIN.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAI KONG, ERIC ENTENMAN, REZA MAZAHERI, and
HOOMAN AZMI

Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–4 and 6–18 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a),
claim 5 has been canceled.1 See Appeal Br. 8.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
FashionLoyal, Inc.. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Sept. 7, 2017
(claiming benefit of US 14/203,271, filed Mar. 10, 2014 and US 61/775,052,
filed Mar. 8, 2013) and Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Aug. 20, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally “relates
to methods of e-commerce, online shopping, image uploading and viewing
methods, as well as methods for searching for products within a social
environment” (Spec. ¶ 2) as well as a computer system and computer based
method that provides “search results based on tags applied to the product in
the image” (Spec. ¶ 8). More specifically, Appellant’s claims recite a
computer system including a computer-based processor and a computer-
based memory storage configured to perform a method for generating search
results by searching an image containing products shown in multiple
selected portions of the image. The method associates each selectable
portion of the image containing a product with a first tag identifying a first
characteristic of the product and at least one secondary tag identifying a
second characteristic of the product in addition to the first characteristic.
The search query based on the second characteristic is optimized for the
database selected using the first tag. See Spec. ¶¶ 8, 33–34, 42–43, 54;
Abstract. Claims 1 (directed to a method), 10 (directed to a method) and 11
(directed to a system) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-based method for providing search
results to users comprising:
presenting at least one image containing at least one
product at a user access terminal;
providing a user interface at the user access terminal for a
first user to select at least a portion of one image of the at least

We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed
Mar. 29, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Dec. 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
3
one image wherein the at least a portion is associated with a
product shown in the selected at least a portion;
accepting a selection from the first user of at least a
portion of the one image; and
presenting the first user with search results,
wherein the at least a portion of the one image is
associated with:
a first tag identifying a first characteristic of the
product; and
at least one secondary tag identifying a second
characteristic of the product in addition to the first
characteristic,
and wherein the one image is drawn from a single image
file stored in an image file format,
and wherein the search results are generated by:
selecting a search database using the first tag; and
generating a search query for searching the search
database based on the second characteristic; and
submitting the search query to the search database,
wherein the search query based on the second
characteristic is optimized for the search database selected
using the first tag,
wherein multiple selectable portions of the one image are
defined and each is associated with one product.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kundu US 2015/0054060 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
Young et al.
(“Young”)
US 2013/0173402 A1 July 4, 2013

REJECTION3, 4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 6–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kundu and Young.5 See Final Act. 6–19.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 10, and 11 (as well as
dependent claims 2–9 and 12–18) as being obvious over Kundu and Young.
See Final Act. 6–19; Ans. 3–11. The Examiner relies on Young to teach an
image associated with a first tag that identifies a first characteristic of a
product and at least one secondary tag that identifies a second characteristic
of the product. See Final Act. 8–12.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date before the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection on page 6 of the Final Action is
incorrect: “Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being anticipated by Kundu:” (emphasis added). See also the heading on
page 15 of the Final Action where the Examiner again uses the word
“anticipated” with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5 The Examiner’s Final Action rejects claims 1–18 as obvious over Kundu
and Young. See Final Act. 6–19. Appellant canceled claim 5 in an After-
Final Amendment filed June 25, 2019. The Amendment incorporated the
limitations of claim 5 in to claim 1. The Amendment was entered in to the
record by the Examiner in an Advisory Action mailed July 19, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
5
Appellant contends that Young does not teach the disputed features of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–16. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia,
that Young describes “several images from multiple image files for display.”
See Appeal Br. 13–14. In contrast, claim 1 recites “multiple selectable
portions of the one image are defined and each is associated with one
product” and that “the one image is drawn from a single image file stored in
an image file format.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). According to
Appellant, the images being presented each have certain distinct
characteristics, each having an “image #” and a corresponding “image file.”
See Appeal Br. 13. In summary, Appellant contends each of the distinct
images in Young are drawn from separate image files. See Appeal Br. 14.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Young
(in combination with Kundu) do not disclose “multiple selectable portions of
the one image are defined”…and that “the one image is drawn from a single
image file stored in an image file format” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 14. The Examiner relies on Kundu to teach multiple selectable portions
of at least one image are defined and each is associated with one product.
Final Act. 13 (citing Kundu Figure 7).
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that Young recognizes
downloading images from an URL which equates to “a single image file
stored in an image file format”. See Ans. 4–6 (citing Young ¶ 581, Fig. 27).
The Examiner appears to rely on Young’s disclosure of browsing
merchandise (particularly images of shirts) and Young’s ability to display
the images of the browsed merchandise to teach that the images are
necessarily stored in an image file format. See Ans. 5–6. The cited portions
of Young, however, instead merely disclose a screenshot of a graphic user
interface (GUI) with multiple images of similar products displayed.
Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
6
Young’s GUI communicates with the system database to retrieve URLs
from which images may be downloaded and displayed. See Young ¶ 581,
Fig. 27.
In particular, we find the portions of Young relied upon by the
Examiner do not describe multiple selectable portions of a single image file.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not sufficiently and persuasively shown that
Young describes the disputed features of claim 1. We, therefore, agree with
Appellant that Young’s user interface does not define multiple selectable
portions of the one image where each portion is associated with one product
and wherein the one image is drawn from a single file stored in an image file
format. See Appeal Br. 13–14; Young ¶ 581, Fig. 27.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kundu and Young
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 11 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–4, 6–9 and 12–18 depend
from and stand with claims 1 and 11, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–18.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4,
and 6–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–18.
Appeal 2020-002504
Application 15/698,175
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–18 103(a) Kundu, Young 1–4, 6–18
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–18

REVERSED