ViralGains Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2020

16022161 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)

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.
16/022,161 06/28/2018 Glenn J. Kiladis ViraG-01US03 1991
91414 7590 10/21/2020
Patent GC LLC
c/o Clarivate Analytics - IP Admin Services
Metro Office Park
3050 Metro Drive, Suite 320
Bloomington, MN 55425
EXAMINER
CHEN, YING YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2020 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):
admin@patentgc.com
docketing@patentgc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN J. KILADIS and ARON ROBERT SCHATZ
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ViralGains, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a machine learning-based media content
sequencing and placement. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only claim
currently pending, claims 2–21 having been cancelled:
1. A method performed by a computer system having at
least one processor and a memory, the method comprising, the
computer system:
for each media content item of a plurality of media
content items, generating a content profile for the media content
item by performing an automated analysis of the media content
item, wherein the content profile comprises a plurality of
attribute fields each of which attribute fields specifies a
characteristic of the media content item determined based on
the automated analysis;
for each sequence of a plurality of different sequences of
media content items selected from the plurality of media
content items, and with respect to the each sequence, for each
user of a plurality of users:
presenting an instance of the each sequence by, for each
media content item in the each sequence, causing an instance of
the each media content item to be presented to the each user,
and
for each instance in which a media content item in the
each sequence is presented to the each user, associating the
each instance in which the media content item is presented
with:
the instance of the each sequence, and
an interaction profile indicative of user responses related
to the presentation of the media content item;
selecting a target media content item from the plurality of
media content items to present to a target user based on:
a sequence of media content items previously presented
to the target user, the content profiles for the plurality of media
content items, the interaction profiles for the instances in which
media content items are presented, and
the associations between instances of media content
items being presented and instances of sequences in which
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

3
media content items are presented; and causing the target media
content item to be presented to the target user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
St. Clair US 2014/0189539 A1 July 3, 2014
Kalmes US 2014/0215506 A1 July 31, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over St. Clair and Kalmes. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2–21 are cancelled, and only claim 1 remains pending and on
appeal. See Appeal Br. 5.
OPINION
First, Appellant argues that St. Clair fails to teach:
for each sequence of a plurality of different sequences of
media content items selected from the plurality of media
content items, and with respect to the each sequence, for each
user of a plurality of users:
presenting an instance of the each sequence by, for each
media content item in the each sequence, causing an instance of
the each media content item to be presented to the each user

Appeal Br. 5–9 (emphasis in original); Reply Br. 6–9. We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds that St. Clair’s Figures 4A-
4F and paragraph 68 teach the disputed limitations. Ans. 4. Although
Appellant argues that paragraph 68 of St. Clair cannot apply to “multiple
users,” we are unpersuaded by this argument because, as the Examiner finds
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

4
and explains, paragraphs 124 and 125 of St. Clair teach a user being a
human user, an entity, or a group. Id. As the Examiner further explains, a
user a node of a social graph is within the context of social networking
system 860, and can be a group of users. Id.
Appellant also argues that St. Clair does not teach “selecting a target
media content item from the plurality of media content items to present to a
target user based on: a sequence of media content items previously presented
to the target user.” Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by
this argument because Appellant fails to explain why the claimed
“sequence” is not taught by St. Clair’s media content items shown in Figures
4A-F. “Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)).
Next, Appellant argues that St. Clair fails to teach “for each media
content item of a plurality of media content items, generating a content
profile for the media content item by performing an automated analysis of
the media content item, wherein the content profile comprises a plurality of
attribute fields each of which attribute fields specifies a characteristic of the
media content item determined based on the automated analysis.” Appeal
Br. 13–14 (emphasis in original). Appellant argues that “the cited portion of
St. Clair addresses only the creation of content boards that do not yet exist.”
Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as the Examiner finds
and explains, St. Clair teaches composing new content boards by modifying
a retrieved content board. Ans. 8 (citing St. Clair ¶ 62). Absent persuasive
rebuttal or technical reasoning to the contrary, we are not persuaded of error.
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

5
Appellant argues St. Clair fails to teach:
selecting a target media content item from the plurality of
media content items to present to a target user based on:
a sequence of media content items previously presented to the
target user, the content profiles for the plurality of media content
items, the interaction profiles for the instances in which media content
items are presented, and
the associations between instances of media content items being
presented and instances of sequences in which media content items
are presented

Appeal Br. 13–15 (emphasis in original).
Appellant argues St. Clair does not teach selecting new content based
on the claimed association. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument
because, as the Examiner explains, St. Clair describes transitions between
content boards of a cover feed, with one board transitioning to another,
including presentation of the sequence of content boards in “automatic
mode,” which the Examiner concludes suggests that the presentation of the
content board (media item) is actively associated with the instance of the
sequence at which the specific content board is to be displayed to the user.
Ans. 8–9 (citing St. Clair, ¶¶ 42, 68, Figs. 4A-4F). St. Clair teaches that the
selection of a target content board (i.e., a target content item) is based on
what the user has previously viewed. Ans. 7 (citing Fig. 4A-4F, ¶ 68). St.
Clair also teaches that at least one sequence of content boards is presented to
a user in which one board is transitioned to another board. Id. (citing St.
Clair ¶ 42).
Finally, Appellant argues Kalmes fails to teach “for each media
content item of a plurality of media content items, generating a content
profile for the media content item by performing an automated analysis of
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

6
the media content item, wherein the content profile comprises a plurality of
attribute fields each of which attribute fields specifies a characteristic of the
media content item determined based on the automated analysis.” Appeal
Br. 15–18. Appellant argues that the cited portions of Kalmes instead relate
to recommendations of media content for a user based on preference and
viewing history data for media content. Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument because, as the Examiner finds
and explains, Kalmes teaches identifying information about the media
content items to gather relevant information pertaining to the estimation of
user preferences regarding a particular media content item and the
determination of appropriate content to be recommended to the user. Ans. 9
(citing Kalmes ¶ 43). Although some of the factors listed may be based on or
associated with user interaction with the content item, attributes such as
“content categories” teach a characteristic that relates to the content item
itself, and not a characteristic based on user interaction. Id. (citing ¶¶ 43,
67).
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not overcome the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent claim 1. As a
result, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-003481
Application 16/022,161

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
103 St. Clair, Kalmes 1

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED