Tencent Technology(Shenzhen) Company Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020000943 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
13/953,576 07/29/2013 Xiaolong Zhang 031384-5010-US 6744
24341 7590 09/14/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOLONG ZHANG, KUNFENG RONG, WENXIAO CHEN,
ZHIYUAN, SHAOMIAN YAO, YUETENG WENG, and XIAO SUN

Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,5761
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, and 11–18, which constitute all
pending claims. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This application was filed on July 29, 2013.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tencent
Technology (Shenzhen) Company Limited. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

2
SPECIFICATION
The Specification is directed “to the field of Internet technologies, and
in particular, to the field of information transmission technologies, and
specifically, to an information transmission method, apparatus, system, and
terminal.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the pending, independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An information transmission method performed at a
first mobile terminal having a first processor and memory for
storing one or more programs to be executed by the first
processor and a second terminal having a second processor and
memory for storing one or more programs to be executed by the
second processor, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the first mobile terminal, ingress information
of a plug-in of a web browser directly from the second terminal,
wherein the second terminal pre-installs the plug in and generates
a graphical representation of the ingress information of the plug-
in on the second terminal, the ingress information comprises
address information of the plug-in and identification information
of the plug-in, and wherein an instant communication application
running on the first mobile terminal is logged in by a first user
account that is distinct from the ingress information and the
ingress information of the plug-in is extracted from the graphical
representation by the instant communication application;
sending, by the first mobile terminal, the ingress
information of the plug-in at the second terminal and the first
user account information associated with the instant
communication application running on the first mobile terminal
to a remote server, wherein the remote server establishes a one-
to-one binding between the first user account at the first mobile
terminal and the plug-in at the second terminal, wherein the one-
to-one binding associates a first login session from the first
mobile terminal to the first user account at the remote server with
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

3
a second login session from the plug-in at the second terminal to
the first user account at the remote server, the one-to-one binding
enabling sharing content displayed on the web browser at the
second terminal with the instant communication application
logged in by the first user account at the first mobile terminal,
and wherein the one-to-one binding has a preset time window;
detecting, by the first mobile terminal, a predefined user
operation on the first mobile terminal to retrieve information
from a current web page in the web browser running on the
second terminal;
in response to the predefined user operation, sending, by
the first mobile terminal, an information transmission instruction
to the plug-in at the second terminal via the remote server in
accordance with the one-to-one binding within the preset time
window, wherein the first mobile terminal sends the information
transmission instruction using the first login session from the
first mobile terminal to the remote server, and the remote server
then sends the information transmission instruction using the
second login session from the remote server to the second
terminal;
extracting, by the plug-in at the second terminal and
according to the information transmission instruction, images
from the current web page in the web browser;
overlaying, by the plug-in at the second terminal, the
extracted images on top of the current web page in the web
browser;
submitting, by the plug-in at the second terminal, the
extracted images to the remote server using the second login
session from the second terminal to the remote server;
receiving, by the first mobile terminal, at least a portion of
the extracted images from the second terminal via the remote
server in accordance with the one-to-one binding, wherein the
remote server sends at least a portion of the extracted images
received from the second terminal using the first login session
from the remote server to the first mobile terminal;
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

4
displaying, by the first mobile terminal, the received
portion of the extracted images on a display of the first mobile
terminal; and
sharing, by the first mobile terminal, the received portion
of the extracted images with a third mobile terminal using the
instant communication application running on the first mobile
terminal.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Abburi US 2003/0084306 A1 May 1, 2003
Haggman WO 2008/047192 A2 Apr. 24, 2008
Hunt US 2010/0070899 A1 Mar. 18, 2010
Lin US 2010/0205241 A1 Aug. 12, 2010
Lee US 2011/0258329 A1 Oct. 20, 2011
Balfanz US 8,256,664 B1 Sep. 4, 2012
Bhimanaik US 8,627,438 B1 Jan. 7, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Balfanz and Hunt. Final Act. 2.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, and Lee. Final Act. 6.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, and Bhimanaik. Final Act. 8.
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, and Abburi.
Final Act. 8.
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, and Haggman.
Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

5
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, and Lin. Final Act. 10.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Balfanz, Hunt, Lee, and Bhimanaik. Final Act. 12.
OPINION
A. Claim 1
Appellant argues that the combination of Balfanz and Hunt fails to
teach or suggest four limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–21. Appellant
further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined
Balfanz and Hunt. Id. at 21–22. We address these arguments below.
1. an instant communication application running on the first mobile
terminal is logged in by a first user account
The Examiner finds that Balfanz teaches the above limitation of claim
1 by disclosing “an instant communication application running on the first
mobile terminal (e.g., mobile phone) is logged in (e.g., establishment of
authenticated connection) by a first user account (e.g., user login
information).” Ans. 8 (citing Balfanz, col. 3, lines 44–53). The Examiner
further finds that Balfanz discloses that the client devices may previously
store user information and this disclosure suggests that the client may
already be logged into the user account. Id. (citing Balfanz, col. 10, lines
15–23). The Examiner explains that “[i]n other words, Balfanz discloses a
mobile phone capable of logging in using credentials to establish an
authenticated connection with the server and the client device may be logged
in ahead of time.” Id.
Appellant argues that Balfanz does not disclose the above limitation.
Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant asserts Balfanz discloses that login
information may be entered into its second device to establish a secure
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

6
connection with its server. Id. at 16 (citing Balfanz, code (57)). Appellant
further asserts that Balfanz’s target service, however, has not been logged in
by the user account on the second client device. (The Examiner implicitly
maps the recited first mobile terminal to Balfanz’s second client device and
client device 160. Final Act. 3 (citing Balfanz, col. 3, lines 44–53, Fig. 7.))
We agree with the Examiner that Balfanz teaches or suggests the
above limitation. Balfanz discloses that its “second client device is a mobile
phone.” Balfanz, col. 3, lines 46–47. Balfanz further discloses that its
second client device provides “login information for the user.” Id. at col. 3,
lines 50–53; see also id. at col. 10, lines 21–23. Further, Balfanz suggests
that client device 160 (a second client device) stores a user’s username and
password by disclosing that a user may enter the username and password if
that information is “not previously stored at client device 160.” Id. at col.
10, lines 5–11. Balfanz further discloses network 150, server 110, and the
client devices can use instant messaging for communication. Id. at col. 6,
lines 53–59. These disclosures support the Examiner’s finding that Balfanz
teaches or suggests an instant communication application running on a first
mobile terminal (referred to in Balfanz as a second client terminal and as
client device 160) logged in by a first user account. Ans. 8.
2. the second terminal pre-installs the plug in and generates a
graphical representation of the ingress information of the plug-in
on the second terminal, the ingress information comprises
address information of the plug-in and identification information
of the plug-in
The Examiner relies primarily on Balfanz for the above limitation.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner implicitly maps the recited second terminal to
client device 170, which is also referred to in Balfanz as the first client
device. Ans. 9 (citing Balfanz, col. 8, lines 31–38); Balfanz, col. 9, 3:3–38.
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

7
The Examiner finds that Balfanz’s client device 170 preinstalls a plug-in
(e.g., a web browser and a set of instructions) and generates a graphical
representation (webpage and QR code) of the ingress information of the
plug-in (e.g., session ID). Ans. 9 (citing Balfanz, col. 6, lines 63–col. 7,
line 11; col. 10, lines 55–64, Fig. 3). Further, the Examiner finds that
Balfanz discloses the ingress information comprises address information
(e.g., associated client device IP address with session ID) of the plug-in and
identification information (e.g., other identifying information) of the plug-in.
Id. (citing Balfanz, col. 8, lines 34–38).
Appellant argues that Balfanz does not teach or suggest having a plug-
in of a web browser at client device 170 or any other device. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant further argues that server 110 generates the QR bar code, not
client device 170. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Balfanz and
Hunt teaches or suggests this limitation. As the Examiner finds, Balfanz
expressly discloses that each client device may be configured to have a web
browser. Ans. 9; Balfanz, col. 6, line 63–col. 7, line 10. Balfanz, however,
may not expressly disclose that the web browser has a plug-in. Id. As the
Examiner finds, however, Hunt expressly discloses the use of plug-ins with
browsers to enable content sharing. Final Act. 5-6; Hunt ¶¶ 38, 48, 50.
Client device 170 (the recited second terminal) generates a graphical
representation of the ingress information (e.g., session ID) by displaying the
QR bar code. Balfanz, Fig. 7, step 730. The graphical representation of the
bar code is generated at client device 170 (id.), which satisfies the limitation
that the second terminal generate a graphical representation of the ingress
information. Claim 1 does not require that the bar code be first generated at
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

8
the second terminal. All that is required is that the second terminal generate
a graphical representation, which client 170 does by displaying the QR bar
code. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Balfanz and Hunt teach or
suggest this limitation. Final Act. 3, 5.
3. wherein the remote server establishes a one-to-one binding
between the first user account at the first mobile terminal and the
plug-in at the second terminal, wherein the one-to-one binding
associates a first login session from the first mobile terminal to
the first user account at the remote server with a second login
session from the plug-in at the second terminal to the first user
account at the remote server
The Examiner finds that Balfanz suggests the above limitation of
claim 1. Ans. 10. Appellant argues that the limitation requires that two
different login sessions between two different devices be bound.
Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant further asserts that Balfanz
compares the session ID obtained by client device 160 with session IDs
associated with the client devices. Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant,
once server 110 identifies that the session ID obtained by client device 160
is the same as the session ID sorted for client device 170, server 110
transmits the requested user data to client device 170. Id. at 19–20.
Appellant argues that, as a result, Balfanz does not teach or suggest binding
two different login sessions. Id. at 20. The Examiner finds that the session
established between the server and client device 170 and the session
established between the server and client device 160 are different sessions
even though they may share the same session ID. Ans. 10. We agree with
the Examiner. The transmission of the session ID allows the terminal to
bind the sessions together. Balfanz, Fig. 7. Claim 1 recites no requirement
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

9
that the sessions have different session IDs. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Balfanz suggests this limitation.
4. first mobile terminal sends the information transmission
instruction using the first login session from the first mobile
terminal to the remote server, and the remote server then sends
the information transmission instruction using the second login
session from the remote server to the second terminal
The Examiner finds that the combination of Balfanz and Hunt teaches
or suggests the above limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 11–12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner concedes that Balfanz does not teach the
above limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further asserts that
Hunt does not teach the above limitation. Id. Appellant asserts that, in
Hunt, the request for content sharing is sent on user system 106 and the
requested content is displayed on user system 106. Id. Thus, according to
Appellant, Hunt does send a transmission instruction from a first mobile
terminal to a remote server and then send a transmission instruction from the
server to a second terminal. Id. at 21. These arguments, however, are not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner does not rely
upon Hunt alone for this limitation. Ans. 12. Instead, the Examiner relies
on Balfanz “disclos[ing] a single user logging in to access a webpage/server
using two different devices” and Hunt as “disclos[ing] sending content from
one device to another via a server.” Id. Thus, Appellant’s arguments
regarding what Hunt teaches by itself do not demonstrate Examiner error.
5. Motivation to Combine Balfanz and Hunt
The Examiner finds that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
utilized the teachings of Hunt to improve upon those in Balfanz in order to
enhance sharing of content through an interface that identifies sharable
content and allows an intuitive interface control for sharing the content to a
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

10
target.” Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have combined Balfanz and Hunt because they are directed to two
distinct fields. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant further argues that “Balfanz is
related to using one device to facilitate secured login on another device, and
Hunt is related to sharing content from a web page to a contact using an
application on the same device.” Id. at 22; see also Reply Br. 10–11.
Appellant also argues that, in Balfanz, client devices 160 and 170 lack a one-
to-one binding relationship and, as a result, it would be almost impossible to
combine Balfanz and Hunt’s teachings. Reply Br. 11.
We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have combined Balfanz and Hunt. First, Balfanz and Hunt are not in
disparate fields. Balfanz relates generally to “providing an authentication
system for secure access to web sites.” Balfanz, col. 1, lines 57–58. Hunt is
directed to enabling “content from a webpage to be shared directly with one
or more targets.” Hunt ¶ 4. Both are related to the use and access of
websites. Second, although Balfanz and Hunt may not be combinable
without modification for the reasons Appellants notes (e.g., Hunt share
content from a web page using an application on the same device), physical
combinability is not required for obviousness, and the Examiner has
explained how Balfanz and Hunt could have been modified and combined.
Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 13. Third, regarding Appellant’s contention that it
would be almost impossible to combine Balfanz and Hunt’s teachings
because of a lack of one-to-one binding, that contention rests solely on
attorney argument, which is not evidence and is thus not persuasive of error.
Reply Br. 10–11; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

11
We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
B. Claims 9 and 16
Appellant does not argue claims 9 and 16 separately from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15–22. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 16 for the
reasons expressed above for claim 1.
C. Claims 3–8, 11–15, 17, and 18
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 3–8, 11–15, 17, and
18 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 22–24. Thus, we sustain the rejections of
claims 3–8, 11–15, 17, and 18 for the same reasons expressed above for
claim 1.
Appeal 2020-000943
Application 13/953,576

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 16 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt 1, 9, 16
3, 11, 17 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt, Lee. 3, 11, 17
4 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt,
Bhimanaik
4
5, 13 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt,
Abburi
5, 13
6, 18 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt,
Haggman
6, 18
7, 8, 14, 15 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt, Lin 7, 8, 14,
15

12 103(a) Balfanz, Hunt, Lee,
and Bhimanaik
12
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9,
11–18

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