LINE Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2021

2020002214 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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.
15/334,730 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