ON24, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2021

2019005865 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
15/051,486 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