Google LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 1, 20212020002429 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2021) 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. 14/879,974 10/09/2015 Adam Champy 0715150.328-US1 3574 104433 7590 02/01/2021 Byrne Poh LLP/Google LLC 11 Broadway Ste 760 New York, NY 10004 EXAMINER FRUNZI, VICTORIA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2021 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): info@byrnepoh.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ADAM CHAMPY ________________ Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21.1 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. Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application “relates to presenting media content that was advertised on a second screen device using a primary screen device, where the advertisements and/or media content can be selected and/or presented based on subscription information for one or more services associated with a user account.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method for presenting content to a user, the method comprising: receiving, using a hardware processor at a server, an advertisement request from a computing device; receiving, using the hardware processor, association information indicating that the computing device is associated with a media presentation device over a local area network, wherein the media presentation device is a separate device that is capable of receiving media content from a remote source and causing the received media content to be presented by a display device in which the media presentation device is connected and wherein the computing device is associated with a user account; receiving, using the hardware processor, user account information associated with the user account; in response to the advertisement request, selecting, using the hardware processor, an advertisement for media content based on the association information indicating that the computer device is associated with the media presentation device over the local area network and based on the user account information indicating that the user being presented with the advertisement is not currently subscribed to a service; determining, using the hardware processor, whether an indicator of subscription status of the user account to the service is to be presented in connection with the selected advertisement based on the user account information, wherein the determining Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 3 whether the indicator of subscription status is to be presented in connection with the selected advertisement includes determining that the user of the user account is likely to subscribe to the service; causing, using the hardware processor, the advertisement to be presented by computing device, wherein the advertisement is associated with instructions that, in response to the computing device receiving input indicating interaction with the advertisement, cause the computing device to instruct the media presentation device to present the media content and the indicator of subscription status; receiving, using the hardware processor, input indicating that the indicator of subscription status has been selected; and in response to receiving the input indicating that the indicator of subscription status has been selected: causing, using the hardware processor, an application associated with the service to be installed on at least one of the computing device and the media presentation device; and causing, using the hardware processor, the media presentation device to switch an input corresponding to the media presentation device, execute the application, and initiate presentation of the media content on the display device via the media presentation device. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Redford (US 9,173,005 B1; Oct. 27, 2015), Jin (US 2015/0095143 A1; Apr. 2, 2015), and Thomas (US 2017/0094332 A1; Mar. 30, 2017). See Final Act. 2–23. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Redford, Jin, Thomas, and Barlin (US 2010/0280903 A1; Nov. 4, 2010). See Final Act. 23–24. Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Redford, Jin, and Thomas teaches all the limitations of representative independent claim 1, including that Redford teaches “selecting . . . an advertisement for media content based on the association information indicating that the computer device is associated with the media presentation device over the local area network.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 3–7. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious because, although Redford teaches computer 282 may use criteria such as a user’s profile to select messages, Redford does not teach the user profile includes any information indicating a connection of devices or an association of a computer device with a media presentation device over a local area network. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Redford, 29:1–3). Appellant also argues Redford does not teach or suggest selecting advertisements based on a connection of devices. Id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Redford teaches using a handheld screen to supplement a television screen where “[d]isplay of social media messages and/or promotional messages on [the] handheld screen is coordinated with the display of video on the television screen.” Redford, code (57). In particular, computer system 250 receives video request 301 from handheld device 200 and, in response, sends signal 312 carrying the requested video to Internet-enabled television 303, which is typically located nearby. Id. at 12:24–30; Fig. 3A. In an embodiment, computer 282, which is part of computer system 250, uses an identifier of handheld device 200 (which originated video request 301) to perform a table look up in a database 831 to find an identifier of a television 303 that has Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 5 been previously associated with handheld device 200. Id. at 27:47–51. Redford’s computer system 250 also sends another signal 311 containing one or more messages to be displayed to the user by handheld device 200. Id. at 12:45–49; Fig. 3A. The messages may include text and/or graphics automatically selected by computer system 250 to complement the user- selected video 302. Id. at 12:50–53. Computer 282 may use criteria such as “the user’s profile (e.g. age, or gender) to select messages.” Id. at 28:34– 29:3. The Examiner finds Redford’s determination of the selected messages based on the user’s profile to be based on association information as the profile would be dependent on the connection of the devices. Final Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner finds that “[i]n Redford, there are multiple devices (i.e. a handheld device and a TV device)” that “are connected to a network (data network in Figure 8B) as well as associated and in communication with each other (Figure 8 B Step 250),” and that “Redford would not be operational without the two devices being associated over a local area network.” Ans. 4–5. The Examiner has not, however, shown that Redford teaches “selecting . . . an advertisement . . . based on the association information indicating that the computer device is associated with the media presentation device over the local area network,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner incorrectly relies on Redford’s data network as meeting the limitation of a local area network (see Ans. 4–5) because Redford describes the data network as, for example, the “Internet or an internal network of a cable TV service provider such as COMCAST.” Redford, 26:35–37. Moreover, we disagree with the Examiner that Redford would not be operational without an association between the handheld device and the Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 6 television over a local area network (see Ans. 5), because multiple embodiments in Redford appear to omit any discussion of a local area network (see, e.g., Figs. 3A and 8B). Nevertheless, Redford’s Figure 7 depicts signal 552, which is used by handheld device 200 to transmit commands to data network interface circuit 392 that is connected to television 303, which suggests local communication. Redford, 25:61–64. And, as noted above, Redford stores an association between the handheld device and television in a database. See, e.g., id. at 27:47–51; 43:47–50. But, even though Redford’s handheld device and television may be locally connected and an association may be stored in a database, the mere existence of such association does not show that Redford’s messages are selected based on the association. Rather, Redford selects messages based on matching keywords or a user profile. See, e.g., id. at 28:34–29:3; 45:20–46. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Redford, Jin, and Thomas teaches “selecting . . . an advertisement for media content based on the association information indicating that the computer device is associated with the media presentation device over the local area network,” as recited in claim 1. For these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 21, which recite commensurate limitations.2 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–10 and 12–20 for the same reasons. 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2020-002429 Application 14/879,974 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–12, 14–21 103 Redford, Jin, Thomas 1, 2, 4–12, 14–21 3, 13 103 Redford, Jin, Thomas, Barlin 3, 13 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation