Fox Sports Productions, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2019005899 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
14/388,994 09/29/2014 Michael P. Conley FEG1308US2 9200
78537 7590 04/02/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SHREWSBURY, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL P. CONLEY and BRIAN ROGERS

____________

Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–28, which are all pending claims. Appeal Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Fox Sports Productions, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994

2
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “integrat[ing] social media aspects
into a second screen system in parallel with or relative to an event.” Spec.
¶ 1. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and
reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing an
enhanced second screen experience, comprising:
providing a user interface, the user interface configured
to present to a user a plurality of data elements relative to an
event and participants in said event; and
providing a plurality of selectable social media interfaces
separately specific to different data elements within said
plurality of data elements, said plurality of selectable social
media interfaces including a social media thread within or
overlaid on said user interface, the social media thread being
specific to the event or to participants in the event, the social
media interface being configured receive or initiate a social
media comment entered by said user and to display social
media comments posted by plural users.

Corrected Appeal Brief Portion 2.

B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fleischman (US
2012/0215903 A1; published Aug. 23, 2012) and Heath (US 2013/0073389
A1; published Mar. 21, 2013). Final Act. 2.
The Examiner rejects claims 3–6 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fleischman, Heath, and Dukes (US 2005/0076362 A1;
published Apr. 7, 2005). Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994

3
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fleischman, Heath, and Barlow (US
2012/0233011 A1; published Sept. 13, 2012). Final Act. 15.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fleischman, Heath, Dukes, and Hannan (US
2009/0187514 A1; published July 23, 2009). Final Act. 17.
The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fleischman, Heath, Dukes, and Moon (US 2011/0072461
A1; published Mar. 24, 2011). Final Act. 19.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant argues that Fleischman’s “heat maps, analytics, etc. are not
relevant to the present claims” as Fleischman
only provides an estimator 250 that aggregates information
from an annotated event store 290 and a mapping store 275 to
estimate social interest in a given media event using a social
interest score. . . . The social interest score is estimated by the
social estimator 250 by cycling through all (or selected)
annotated events, and for each event, taking a weighted sum of
the confidence scores for each social media content item that
exceeds the threshold.

Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 7, citing Fleishman ¶ 48. Appellant
contends that “[c]laim 1 specifically requires that the user interface for a
Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994

4
user be configured to receive or initiate a social media comment entered
by said user and to display social media comments posted by plural users.”
Reply Br. 3.
Regarding Heath, Appellant argues the cited portions “only generally
indicate that social network integration may include services such as
Facebook, Twitter, etc.” and “in the context of Heath’s combined/aggregated
display of social media content, that only potentially relates to the ability to
operate a social media plugin on the website, [and] generally, perform
instant messaging, text chat, etc.” Reply Br. 4, citing Heath ¶¶ 100–105.
We agree. In response to Appellant’s argument that “nowhere does
Fleischman (which is an analytics machine) teach or suggest social media
threads that are interactive such that they can accept the user’s comments
as well as post other user’s comments related to a specific event data
element” (Appeal Br. 8, citing Fleishman ¶¶ 48–49, Fig. 9C, ¶¶ 171–174),
the Examiner finds that:
Claim 1 provides a means for a user to enter social media
information related to an event. Heath at [¶ 12] describes the
event related social media elements further described at Heath
[¶¶ 100–105] to include social media software described for
posting both topics and comments. It would be logical for [a]
system like the one in Heath to be used with the analysis system
in Fleischman because the existence of and interface like the
one in Fleischman presumes there is a way for users, potentially
the [users] of Fleischman, to create the data that will be
analyzed by Fleischman. Heath demonstrates that someone was
doing this.

Ans. 4.
It is unclear from the Examiner’s findings how one starts with an
“event” as taught by Fleischman and arrives at the combined teachings of
Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994

5
Fleischman and Heath, in which the claimed “user interface” includes the
claimed
social media thread within or overlaid on said user interface, the
social media thread being specific to the event or to participants
in the event, the social media interface being configured [to]
receive or initiate a social media comment entered by said user
and to display social media comments posted by plural users.

In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Fleischman illustrates “a user interface is disclosed presenting an event” in
which “the event features players.” Final Act 3, citing Fleischman Fig. 9C,
¶¶ 171–174. In the cited portion of Fleischman, a “selected event” is
identified as “a pass in a football game.” Fleischman ¶ 173, citing Fig. 9C.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Heath teaches the
inclusion of “social media software described for posting both topics and
comments” (Ans. 4), as Heath teaches that “Internet forums allow users to
post a ‘topic’ for others to review.” Heath ¶ 105.
However, the Examiner has identified no teaching or suggestion why
one skilled in the art would modify Heath’s teachings so that Heath’s topic
postings would be presented in a “social media thread being specific to the
event or to participants in the event.” The Examiner’s finding that “[i]t
would be logical for [a] system like the one in Heath to be used with the
analysis system in Fleischman because the existence of and interface like the
one in Fleischman presumes there is a way for users, potentially the [users]
of Fleischman, to create the data that will be analyzed by Fleischman”
(Ans. 4) does not account for the changes in Heath to accommodate the
events of Fleischman. Absent sufficient explanation, the rejection lacks
Appeal 2019-005899
Application 14/388,994

6
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify
obviousness. See KSR Int’l., Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claim
15 commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 2–14 and 16–28.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 9,
10, 13,
15, 16,
21, 23,
24, 27
103(a) Fleischman, Heath 1, 2, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, 21,
23, 24, 27
3–6, 17–
20
103(a) Fleischman, Heath,
Dukes
3–6, 17–20
11, 12,
25, 26
103(a) Fleischman, Heath,
Barlow
11, 12, 25, 26
8, 22 103(a) Fleischman, Heath,
Dukes, Hannan
8, 22
14, 28 103(a) Fleischman, Heath,
Dukes, Moon
14, 28
Overall
Outcome
1–28