ON24, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 10, 20212019005865 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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. 15/051,486 02/23/2016 Jayesh SAHASI 350821-991310 5886 26379 7590 02/10/2021 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) 2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248 EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2021 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): PatentDocketingUS-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAYESH SAHASI Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed February 23, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed December 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed January 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 31, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 31, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as On24, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to generating, delivering, measuring, and managing media apps to showcase videos, documents, blogs, and slides using a web- based portal. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with formatting altered and labels added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: [(a)] receiving a plurality of pieces of content, each piece of the plurality of different pieces of content having a different format; [(b)] managing, using a computer based media portal system, the plurality of received pieces of content, the media portal system having a plurality of media applications wherein each media application is used to manage a piece of content having a particular format; [(c)] wherein managing the piece of content having the particular format further comprises [(c)(1)] viewing, by a user using a computing device using a view user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the particular format, the piece of content having the particular format; [(c)(2)] sharing, by a user using the computing device using a share user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the particular format, the piece of content having the particular format using a channel and [(c)(3)] commenting, by a user using the computing device using a comment user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the particular format, on the piece of content having the particular format; and [(d)] wherein managing the receiving piece of content having the different format further comprises [(d)(1)] viewing, by a user using a computing device using a view user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the different format, the piece of content having the different format; Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 3 [(d)(2)] sharing, by a user using the computing device using a share user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the different format, the piece of content having the different format using a channel and [(d)(3)] commenting, by a user using the computing device using a comment user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the different format, on the piece of content having the different format. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chowdhry US 2003/0167315 A1 Sept. 4, 2003 Lauridsen US 2009/0100372 A1 Apr. 16, 2009 Tolle US 2009/0138508 A1 May 28, 2009 Khouri US 2012/0210247 A1 Aug. 16, 2012 Morris III US 2014/0214691 A1 July 31, 2014 Baldwin US 2015/0213145 A1 July 30, 2015 REJECTIONS3 Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 13–15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhry and Khouri. Final Act. 3–6. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhry, Khouri, and Lauridsen or, in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Chowdhry, Khouri, and Tolle. Final Act. 6–8. 3 A rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more (Final Act. 2–3) is withdrawn. Ans. 10. Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 4 Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhry, Khouri, Lauridsen, Baldwin, and Tolle or, in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Chowdhry, Khouri, Morris, and Tolle. Final Act. 8–10. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue claims 2–18. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2–18 further herein. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). OPINION Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error The Examiner finds Chowdhry’s system for creating custom internet portals teaches or suggests receiving content (claim element (a)); managing the content (claim element (b)); wherein managing content of a particular format (claim element (c)) includes viewing the content (claim element (c)(1)) and sharing the content (claim element (c)(2) but for use of a channel); and wherein managing the receiving of content having a different format (claim element (d)) also includes viewing (claim element (d)(1)) and sharing (element (d)(2)) the content having a different format. Final Act. 3– 4 (citing Chowdhry Figs. 3, 8; ¶¶ 6, 96, 97, 103, and 119). Addressing the remaining channel usage and commenting recitations of claim 1, the Examiner finds Khouri teaches or suggests sharing content using a channel Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 5 (claim element (c)(2)) together with user viewing and commenting (elements (c)(1) and (c)(3)); and, similarly, viewing, sharing, and commenting differently formatted content (claim element (d) including elements (d)(1) through (d)(3)). Id. at 4–5 (citing Khouri Fig. 9; ¶¶ 48, 74, 95–97, and 105). According to the Examiner the reason for modifying Chowdhry’s system to include Khouri’s sharing of content using a channel and commenting is because “the combination would have shared, view[ed], edit[ed], [and] comment[ed] content . . . in a collaboration environment as Khouri disclosed.” Id. at 5. Appellant contends the rejection is improper. In particular, Appellant contends: Independent claims 1 and 10 both receive different media applications of the media portal system wherein each of these media applications may perform viewing, sharing and commenting for a piece of content having a particular format (e.g., a video, a document, a blog, etc.) that is not found in Chowdhry. Chowdhry discloses user portlets that may be created by a user wherein each portlet has different content, but the portlets do not provide for viewing, sharing and commenting for a piece of content having a particular format. Thus, Chowdhry does not disclose or suggest these elements of the claims. Khouri discloses intelligence social collaboration media in which a user may generate a post or share data. Khouri still fails to disclose the claimed view user interface element for the different format piece of content and the claimed comment user interface element for the different format piece of content. Thus, Khouri still does not disclose or suggest these claim features. Thus, Chowdhry and Khouri, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest these claim elements and the obviousness rejection must be overturned by the Board. Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 6 Appeal Br. 7. Analysis We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. As an initial issue, Appellant’s response to the outstanding rejections is facially inadequate. Appellant fails to specifically address the Examiner’s findings including the prior art disclosed in the portions of the references cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3–4) or explain why the Examiner’s findings regarding those disclosures are erroneous. See Appeal Br. 7. A general denial that fails to address the Examiner’s findings is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement [that] merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 7 Appellant’s contentions also are substantively inadequate. In particular, Appellant’s contention that “Chowdhry[’s] . . . portlets do not provide for viewing, sharing and commenting for a piece of content having a particular format” (Appeal Br. 7) fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Chowdhry in combination with Khouri, not Chowdhry singly, teaches or suggest these three operations. As explained above, although the Examiner finds that Chowdhry teaches viewing and sharing, Khouri teaches commenting by a user, in addition to teaching user viewing and sharing. Final Act. 4–5. Thus, Appellant’s contention is based on an improper attack on the Chowdhry reference individually when the rejection is based on the combination of Chowdhry and Khouri. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). To the extent Appellant argues Chowdhry’s content does not have a particular format, the Examiner finds Chowdhry’s receipt of different content teaches content having a particular forma. Final Act. 3 (citing Chowdhry Figs. 3, 8; ¶¶ 103, 119). The Examiner further finds “Chowdhry teaches a user can recreate portlets having particular content, such as text, image, link and/or pane.” Ans. 11 (citing Chowdhry Fig. 3). Appellant fails to explain why the different types of content identified by the Examiner, including text, image, links, and panes, fails to teach or suggest the argued content having a particular format. Thus, Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 8 Appellant belatedly argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that Chowdhry “fails to disclose ‘viewing, by a user using a computing device using a view user interface element of the media application for the piece of content having the particular format.’” Reply Br. 1. Appellant fails to show good cause for this new argument, and as such, Appellant’s belated argument is deemed waived as untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016). See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). Therefore, we do not address Appellant’s contention further. Moreover, Figure 3 of Chowdhry shows the media application displaying a sample user interface with visible text, images, links, and panes. Appellant’s second contention alleging Khouri is inadequate is likewise both facially insufficient as a matter of procedure and substantively unpersuasive. Again, Appellant fails to specifically address the Examiner’s findings including the portions of the Khouri reference cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4–5 (citing Khouri Fig. 9; ¶¶ 48, 74, and 95–97)) or explain why the Examiner’s findings regarding the cited portions of Khouri Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 9 are erroneous. See Appeal Br. 7. A general denial that fails to address the Examiner’s findings is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Substantively, Appellant fails to explain why Khouri’s graphical user interface 145 illustrated in Figure 9 of the reference fails to teach the referenced user interface element. Nor does Appellant explain why the Examiner errs in finding Khouri discloses “authoring gadgets/portlets, blogs, [and] post with different content formats,” thereby teaching different formats. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 11. Instead, Khouri’s examples of information including “any format of groupware documents, blogs, wiki articles, microblogs, emails, instant messages (individual or group), audio/video transcripts, voice messages, and the like” (Khouri ¶ 55) unambiguously teaches different content formats. Appellant’s contention is further unpersuasive because the Examiner cites to both Khouri and Chowdhry for teaching a view user interface element (Final Act. 3–4), yet Appellant does not explain why both Khouri and Chowdhry are deficient. For the reasons discussed above, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Khouri and Chowdhry teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 together with the rejections of dependent claims 2–9 and 11–18, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 13–15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chowdhry and Khouri. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Chowdhry, Khouri, and Lauridsen and over the combined teachings of Chowdhry, Khouri, and Tolle. Appeal 2019-005865 Application 15/051,486 10 We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Chowdhry, Khouri, Lauridsen, Baldwin, and Tolle and over the combined teachings of Chowdhry, Khouri, Morris, and Tolle. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–2, 4–6, 8– 11, 13–15, 17–18 103 Chowdhry, Khouri 1–2, 4–6, 8– 11, 13–15, 17–18 3, 12 103 Chowdhry, Khouri, Lauridsen 3, 12 3, 12 103 Chowdhry, Khouri, Tolle 3, 12 7, 16 103 Chowdhry, Khouri, Lauridsen, Baldwin, Tolle 7, 16 7, 16 103 Chowdhry, Khouri, Morris, Tolle 7, 16 Overall Outcome 1–18 RESPONSE 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