LINE CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 12, 20212020002214 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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. 15/334,730 10/26/2016 JungHo SHIN 16634LN-000033-US-COA 3377 30593 7590 11/12/2021 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER HOULIHAN, STEPHEN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/12/2021 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com jcastellano@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte JUNGHO SHIN and JUNGMIN LEE _______________ Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, LINE Corporation, is the real party-in- interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a messenger-linked service system to enable data associated with a messenger-linked application to be transmitted and shared through a messenger. Spec. ¶ 9, Abstract. Claim 2 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 2. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor included in a smart device of a sender, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: generating, using a first messenger-linked application installed in the smart device of the sender, a first function, the first messenger-linked application associated with at least one messenger service, the first function configured to, extract data stored in the first messenger-linked application, or generate data related to the first messenger-linked application; generating, using the first messenger-linked application, a second function configured to generate a social graph or a chat history associated with user relationships on the messenger service; receiving, using the first messenger-linked application, a selection of the second function; displaying, in response to the selection of the second function, the social graph or the chat history in the first messenger-linked application; transmitting the extracted data or the generated data to a smart device of a recipient selected from the social graph or the chat history; and performing user authentication between the first messenger-linked application and the messenger service, the performing including obtaining a user’s consent when the first messenger-linked application is operated and performing operations related to the messenger service without authenticating the user on the messenger service, Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 3 wherein the extracted data or the generated data is displayed in the smart device of the recipient by a second messenger-linked application installed in the smart device of the recipient, and the first messenger-linked application includes at least one of a card application, a camera application, and a photo album application. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 6, 8 through 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Groves (US 2011/0167122 A1, pub. July 7, 2011), Maresh (US 2007/0130275 A1, pub. June 7, 2007), and Kent, Jr. (US 8,543,637 B2, iss. Sept. 24, 2013) (“Kent”). Non-Final Act. 3–9. The Examiner has rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Groves, Maresh, Kent, and Sehrer (US 9,020,965 B1, iss. Apr. 28, 2015). Non-Final Act. 9. The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Groves, Maresh, Kent, and Melander (US 2013/0103447 A1, pub. Apr. 25, 2013). Non-Final Act. 10. The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Groves, Maresh, Kent, and Velusamy (US 2009/0327882 A1, pub. Dec. 31, 2009). Non-Final Act. 11. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed January 23, 2020 (Reply Br.); Non- Final Office Action mailed April 10, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 26, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15 through 20. Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 2 based upon the combination of Groves, Maresh, and Kent. Appeal Br. 14–24. These arguments present us with three issues: a) did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the references teaches the limitation directed to “performing user authentication between the first messenger-linked application and the messenger service, the performing including obtaining a user’s consent when the first messenger-linked application is operated and performing operations related to the messenger service without authenticating the user on the messenger service” as recited in claim 2? Appeal Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 2–7. b) did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the references teaches the limitation directed to “the first messenger-linked application includes at least one of a card application, a camera application, and a photo album application” as recited in claim 2? Appeal Br. 17–21; Reply Br. 7–8. c) did the Examiner properly provide a rationale to combine the references? Appeal Br. 21–24; Reply Br. 8–10. First issue With respect to the first issue, Appellant argues that Maresh, the reference the Examiner relies upon to teach the limitation directed to authentication between the first messenger-linked application and the messenger service, does not teach the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 15–17. Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 5 Appellant argues that Maresh teaches that a password is required in order to access the instant messaging application. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Maresh ¶ 76 and Figs. 8, 11. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to this argument on pages 3 through 4 of the Answer. In this response, the Examiner identifies that Maresh teaches linking a calendar application (an application which can be considered a messenger-linked application) to a message application. Ans. 3–4 (citing Maresh Figs. 10, 11, ¶¶ 76, 84–95). Further, the Examiner finds that the calendar application provides the information necessary for the instant messaging application to communicate with the calendar application and that this link is made without authenticating the user on the messenger service. Ans. 4 (citing Maresh Fig. 9). We concur with the Examiner’s findings and are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 2 recites “performing user authentication between the first messenger-linked application and the messenger service, the performing including obtaining a user’s consent when the first messenger-linked application is operated and performing operations related to the messenger service without authenticating the user on the messenger service.” Thus, the claim requires there to be authentication between the messenger-linked application and the messenger, the claim does not identify which of either the application or messenger performs the authentication. Maresh teaches the linking can be performed via the messenger preferences screen (shown in Fig. 9) or by the calendar (messenger-linked application) preferences screen. Thus, Maresh teaches an authentication between the messenger-linked application and the messenger. Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 6 Claim 2 further recites that the authentication is performed by obtaining a user’s consent; this is shown by the user making the selection in these preference screens to link the calendar to the messenger service. Finally, the claim recites the negative limitation that authentication is performed “without authenticating the user on the messenger service.” Maresh states in “[i]nstant messaging password 810 is required in order to access the instant messaging application if the instant messaging application is password protected.” Maresh ¶ 76 (emphasis added). Given this evidence (id.), we find Maresh contemplates, and thus teaches or suggests, an embodiment where a password (as used to authenticate the user to the messenger services) is not needed. Appellant’s, new argument in the Reply Brief, that: the instant claims recite both a “messenger service” and a “messenger application for the messenger service,” (see e.g., claim 4 of the instant application), and claim 2 clearly requires “performing user authentication between the first messenger- linked application and the messenger service.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive of error as is not commensurate with the scope of claim 2, in that claim 2 does not recite a separate messenger application for the messenger service.3 Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error and we concur with the Examiner that Maresh in combination with the other references teaches the disputed limitation 3 In as much as this argument is a separate argument directed to the rejection of claim 4, we have not considered this argument, Appellant grouped claim 4 with claim 2. See Appeal Br. 18; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv). Further, the argument is not considered as Appellant has not shown good cause for belatedly raising the new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019). Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 7 directed to the performing user authentication between the first messenger- linked application and the messenger service. Second issue With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that Kent, the reference the Examiner relies upon to teach the limitation directed to the photo album, does not teach the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 18–21. Appellant argues that Kent teaches an instant messenger service that allows a user to publish content and includes a photo album function. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Kent col. 1, ll. 30–45, col. 2, l. 49–col. 3, l. 26, col. 7, ll. 7–45, Figs. 1, 2). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection which equates the photo album with claimed first messenger-linked application is improper as Kent teaches that the photo album is integrated into the instant message application. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Kent col. 7, ll. 25–45). Further, Appellant argues that even if that photo album function is separate from the instant messenger, the Examiner has not shown that the photo album feature would be combinable with the calendar allocations of the other references (Groves and Maresh). Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to this argument on pages 5 through 6 of the Answer. In this response the Examiner cites to Kent’s Figures 6 and 7 and explains how a photo album is created and published, thus teaching the claimed messenger-linked application including a photo album application. Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner finds that Kent teaches that the photo album is served from the web server 140 (separate from the Instant Messaging server 120) and can be viewed using a conventional web browser 165 and as such the Examiner finds that the IM Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 8 application may be a separate application from the photo album. Ans. 5–6 (citing Kent Fig. 1, and col. 7, ll. 7–24). We concur with the Examiner’s findings and are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the photo album of Kent does not meet the claimed first messenger-linked application being a photo album.4 Initially, we note that claim 2 does not recite a limitation requiring the messenger- linked application to be different from a messenger application, and thus Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Further, we concur with the Examiner that Kent teaches that the photo- album can be created using a web application (web browser 165 and web server 140) which is separate from the instant message application (IM application 155 and IM server 120). See Kent col 7, ll. 7–45. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error and we concur with the Examiner that Kent in combination with the other references teaches the disputed limitation directed to first messenger- linked application being a photo album. Third issue With respect to the third issue, Appellant argues that “Examiner’s reliance upon Kent is improper under § 103 because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been objectively motivated to modify the calendar applications of Groves and/or Maresh with a photo album function.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant reasons: 4 We address Appellant’s arguments concerning the rationale to modify the calendar to include a photo album, infra as part of the discussion of the third issue. Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 9 the Examiner is not relying upon Kent to modify the functionality of the instant messenger application of Groves and/or Maresh, but rather is relying upon the photo album function of Kent to modify or completely replace the calendar applications of Groves and Maresh because the Examiner alleges the calendar applications Groves and Maresh and the photo album function of Kent are the equivalent of the “first messenger-linked application” of claim 2. . . . the Examiner’s alleged rationale for combining Groves and Maresh with Kent is wholly inapplicable because the Examiner has failed to substantiate his conclusory statement that the alleged combination “provides an enhanced communication system by . . . making it easier for the user to access and share desired photos with their social contacts tied to their messaging application.” Appellants submit that the Examiner has failed to objectively show that combining the calendar applications of Groves and Maresh with the photo album feature of Kent would in any way enhance or improve the ability of a user to share phots [sic] with social contacts tied to a messaging application, as both Groves and Maresh (and Kent) fail to disclose or suggest that data is sent to an instant messaging contact through the calendar application itself, but rather requires a separate instant messaging application to transmit the data. Appeal Br. 22–23 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “Groves discloses sharing of electronic content using electronic messaging (i.e. instant messages (IMs) (Fig. 2, [0002]), Maresh discloses a system for managing an instant messaging (IM) service for sharing electronic content (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0002], [0052]) and Kent shows an instant messaging (IM) service for sharing electronic content (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col 3 lines 18 – 20, Col 3 line 56 – Col. 4 line 1).” Ans. 6. Based upon these findings the Examiner concludes: the calendar application of Groves and Maresh and the photo album application of Kent are both aligned to their respective Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 10 messenger (Instant messaging - IM) applications and provide enhanced functionality to their IM users. The combination of the calendaring application of Groves and Maresh with the photo album functionality of Kent provides the IM user with an enhanced communications environment by adding the capability of creating, viewing and sharing photos and images among the user’s social networking contacts utilizing the instant messaging (IM) application. Thus providing expanded functionality and capabilities above and beyond what is offered by calendaring application functionality of Groves and Maresh alone. (Kent: Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8A, Col 7 lines 25 – 45). Ans. 7. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. At the outset, we note the claims do not recite a calendar based application, rather just functions of a messenger-linked application, and the Examiner has found (and Appellant has not contested) they are taught in messenger linked calendar applications. Further, the Examiner’s rejection does not involve modifying calendar applications to include a photo album, but rather is showing that the calendar applications of Groves and Maresh are messenger-linked applications which have several of the claimed features, and that Kent also teaches a messenger-linked application which includes a photo album. Thus, the Examiner is merely combining known features of messenger-linked applications in a predictable manner. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Groves, Maresh, and Kent to provide enhanced features for the IM user. We additionally note that Maresh teaches Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 11 that the calendar application may include the ability to handle photos (see Maresh ¶ 52), thus, in as much as the combination of the references involves combining a photo sharing with a calendar, Maresh further provides a suggestion to combine the two features. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the third issue have not persuaded us of error and we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2. Appellant argues the rejections of claims 3 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15 through 20, are in error for the same reasons as claim 2. Appeal Br. 18, 21, 24. As we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection claims 3 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15 through 20 for the same reasons as claim 2. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15 through 20. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2–6, 8– 13, 15, 18 103 Groves, Maresh, Kent 2–6, 8–13, 15, 18 16, 17 103 Groves, Maresh, Kent, Sehrer 16, 17 19 103 Groves, Maresh, Kent, Melander 19 20 103 Groves, Maresh, Kent, Velusamy 20 Overall Outcome 2–6, 8‒13, 15–20 Appeal 2020-002214 Application 15/334,730 12 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation