REGWEZ, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2022

2020006360 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2022)

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. 15/410,668 01/19/2017 Ragy Farouk Eleish 122881-0005UT06 8159 27189 7590 01/20/2022 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B STREET SUITE 2200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 EXAMINER CASILLAS, ROLAND J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2022 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): PTONotifications@procopio.com docketing@procopio.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAGY FAROUK ELEISH Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Jan. 19, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Sept. 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed June 1, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 10, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed Sept. 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Regwez, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a central server that provides a multimode user interface, which allows authorized users to search, navigate, and access media objects in other devices. Spec. ¶ 9. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 above depicts network 100 including central server 120 that maintains access control rules in data store 125 thereby to enable users to search, navigate, and access media objects or digital contents across other devices (110, 140, 150). Spec. ¶¶ 57-59. Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 3 Independent claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A system for interacting with a media platform, comprising: a datastore configured to store access control rules for a plurality of devices or systems, the access controls rules defining access of digital objects stored on the devices or systems by the other devices or systems within the plurality of devices or systems; a central server comprising one or more processors coupled with the data store, the central server configured to run programs and applications that cause the central server to access the access control rules in order to enforce the access control rules with respect to accessing media objects stored on one of the plurality of devices or systems by one or more of the other devices and systems of the plurality of devices and systems via the access control rules, wherein the central server is further configured to: provide, to a user device of the plurality of user devices, a user interface (UI) to control a multi-mode application for interacting with the plurality of media objects, searching the plurality of media objects, or both, wherein the user interface comprises multiple mode navigation regions and each mode navigation region is associated with a mode of the multi-mode application, wherein each mode navigation region comprises a specific set of functions for controlling the mode associated with the mode navigation region; and present the navigation region for an active mode based on detecting device activity, wherein the UI includes a global navigation menu for switching to non-active modes and suppresses functions associated with the non-active modes. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 4 III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Hintermeister US 20078/0226650 A1 Sept. 27, 2007 Tuchman US 2013/0223614 A1 Aug. 29, 2013 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 as follows: Claims 1-6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Tuchman. Final Act. 3-7. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tuchman and Hintermeister. Id. at 7-8. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-9 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-4.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.5 Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 4-5. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). 5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 5 1. Anticipation Rejection Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Tuchman anticipates claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-9. In particular, Appellant argues that because Tuchman discloses a central server including a data warehouse to provide services to users via an interface containing several menus and associated choices, Tuchman does not allow users to search and navigate search contents without the need for users to upload content to a central server, as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 8. According to Appellant, the claim explicitly recites storing on the data store (not on the central server) access control rules that are used by the central server. Reply Br. 2. Therefore, Appellant submits that Tuchman’s disclosure of storing the data contents on the central server vitiates the claimed limitations. Id. at 2-3 (citing Tuchman Figs. 5A-D). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that while the claim recites the data store storing access control rules used by a central server, it does not preclude the data store from being included in the central server. Ans. 4-5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Tuchman’s disclosure of a central server including a warehouse storing access control data and media objects describes the disputed limitations. Id. Because we are not persuaded 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2020-006360 Application 15/410,668 6 of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Tuchman. Regarding the rejections of claims 2-6 and 8, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 2-6 and 8 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2. Obviousness Rejection Regarding claim 7, Appellant reiterates the argument previously submitted for patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, the arguments are not persuasive. Consequently we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 for the foregoing reasons. VI. CONCLUSION On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8 102 Tuchman 1-6, 8 7 103 Tuchman, Hintermeister 7 Overall Outcome 1-8 VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED