DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020004888 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/715,898 09/26/2017 Rebekkah Laeuchli 090492-
P16409US1-1062790
1092
63656 7590 11/23/2021
Disney / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WENG, PEI YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte REBEKKAH LAEUCHLI, SASHA SCHRIBER,
STEPHAN VEEN, MARKUS GROSS, ISABEL SIMO, and
MAX GROSSE
____________________

Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge FRAHM.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge DIXON.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–21, which constitute all the

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

2

claims pending in this application. Claim 2 has been canceled (see Appeal
Br. 18, Appendix A).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
Appellant’s disclosed invention, entitled “Creation of Non-Linearly
Connected Transmedia Content Data” (see Title), “relates to apparatus,
systems and methods for manipulating non-linearly connected transmedia
content, for example creating processing and/or managing non-linearly
connected transmedia content. For example, the disclosure provides for
tracking content creation and attributing transmedia content to one or more
creators” (Spec. ¶ 1). Appellant recognizes that
the ever-growing availability of content to multiple users and the
ever-increasing power of computing resources available to
individual users is driving users towards their own individual
creation of content, with such content being in multiple formats.

provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).
2 The Examiner inadvertently includes claim 2 as being pending and rejected
on the cover sheet of the Final Office Action (see Final Act. 1, boxes 5, 7),
in the heading of the statement of the rejection (see Final Act. 2), in the body
of the rejection (see Final Act. 4), and repeats this error in the restatement of
the rejection in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3–5). As claim 2 was
clearly canceled by Appellant’s Amendment filed September 13, 2019 (see
pp. 2, 8; see also Appeal Br. 18, Appendix A; Appeal Br. 3 (stating that only
claims 1 and 3–21 are pending and rejected)), we consider this to be
harmless error. For purposes of this appeal, we consider claims 1 and 3–31,
and not claim 2 which was canceled, to be pending, rejected, and appealed.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

3

Spec. ¶ 6. With this in mind, Appellant discloses and claims a method for
allowing multiple users to manipulate and create non-linearly connected
transmedia content (e.g., “video, text or images” (Spec. ¶ 3)) through the use
of other users’ content (see Abstract; claim 1).
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating
non-linear transmedia content data items, the method
comprising:
receiving first instructions from a first user for creating
a transmedia content data item;
[i] assigning a unique identifier to the transmedia
content data item;
storing the transmedia content data item and the unique
identifier in a data store, along with a first record indicating
an association between the first user and the transmedia
content data item;
[ii] receiving second instructions from a second user for
creating an ordered group of transmedia content data items,
the ordered group comprising a pointer to the transmedia
content data item of the first user; and
storing the ordered group and a second record
associating both the first user and the second user with the
ordered group in the data store.
Appeal Br. 18, Appendix A (emphases and bracketed lettering added).
Remaining independent claims 17 and 18 recite a non-transitory computer-
readable medium (claim 17) and an electronic device to perform the
“computer-implemented method for generating non-linear transmedia
content data items” (claim 1) having limitations commensurate in scope with
limitations A1–A5 of claim 1. As discussed below, limitation ii, which
allows for the receipt of instructions from a second user to point to
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

4

transmedia content data items of a first user (claim 1), will be dispositive of
the instant appeal.

The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 3–12, and 17–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2013/0290871 A1; published Oct.
31, 2013) (hereinafter, “Jordan”).3 Final Act. 2–7; Ans. 3–8.
(2) Claims 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jordan and Vitek (US 2010/0114714 A1; published May
6, 2010). Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant’s Dispositive Contention
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
3–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the failure of the base reference of
Jordan to teach or suggest a method for allowing multiple users to
manipulate and create non-linearly connected transmedia content through
the use of other users’ content as recited in limitation ii of independent claim
1, and as commensurately recited in remaining independent claims 17 and
18 (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3).

3 Although claims 19–21 are not included in the heading of the statement of
the rejection (see Final Act. 2; Ans. 3), claims 19–21 are rejected and
discussed on the merits (see Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 7–8). Appellant recognizes
claims 19–21 are pending and rejected (see Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 2), and
also presents arguments as to claim 19 and 20 (see Appeal Br. 8–9) and
claim 21 (see Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6). Therefore, we consider claims
19–21 to stand rejected and be before us on appeal.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

5

Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 6–
17) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–7), the following dispositive issue is
presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 3–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Jordan fails to teach or suggest
“receiving second instructions from a second user for creating an ordered
group of transmedia content data items, the ordered group comprising a
pointer to the transmedia content data item of the first user,” as recited in
claim 1 (see claim 1, limitation ii), and as commensurately recited in
remaining independent claims 17 and 18?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 6–
17; Reply Br. 2–7), the Examiner’s rejection as to claims 1 (see Final Act.
2–4; Ans. 3–4), 17 (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 6–7), and 18 (see Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6–7), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 10–15) to Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Jordan teaches
or suggests the subject matter recited in limitation ii of claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3), and the commensurate limitations found in
remaining independent claims 17 and 18. Our reasoning follows.
The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

6

quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an
administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational
reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967).
In formulating the obviousness rejections, with regard to limitation ii
of claim 1 (which includes allowing a second user to create content based on
transmedia content data items of a first user through the use of a pointer),
and the commensurate limitations found in claims 17 and 18, the Examiner
maps limitation ii to paragraphs 5, 25–28, and 49 of Jordan (see Final Act. 3;
Ans. 4). The Examiner makes the following determination:
In regard to independent claim 1, Jordan teaches . . .
receiving second instruction from a second user for creating an
ordered group of transmedia content data items, the ordered
group comprising a pointer to the transmedia content data item
of the first user (see e.g. para [5] [25]-[28] [49] — “Digital print
may include links that are associated with the content, and may
have some of the content modified so that the user is encouraged
to use the links.” [¶ 25] “information that is specific to the users
‘account’ can be mapped”) [¶ 49] . . .

Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4.
Without specifically mapping the cited portions of Jordan to the
recited first and second users, the Examiner further determines that (i)
Jordan’s creation of maps as parts of stories, and add-on maps, allows users
to track media content within the stories (see Ans. 10–11); and (ii) “Jordan
expressly teaches that multiple users can be creators to create stories” (Ans.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

7

11 citing Jordan ¶ 29). However, Jordan is silent as to allowing a second
user to track/use content from a first (and different) user/creator, as set forth
in Appellant’s claims.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how one would modify
Jordan, or why it would be obvious, to perform the operation of limitation ii
in claim 1 (allowing a second user to create content based on transmedia
content data items of a first user through the use of a pointer). Although
Jordan’s invention allows a user to track data items, e.g., characters in a
Batman story, used for creating a story using a relational database (see
Jordan ¶¶ 19, 20), Jordan is silent as to tracking users/creators for purposes
of generating non-linear transmedia content data items and using a pointer,
as claimed. Therefore, regarding limitation ii in claim 1, and the
commensurate limitations found in claims 17 and 18, the Examiner makes
insufficient findings as to how/why Jordan discloses, teaches, or suggests
allowing a second user to create content based on transmedia content data
items of a first user by using a pointer as required by claims 1, 17, and 18
(see, e.g., claim 1, limitation ii). At best, the Examiner’s proposed
combination leaves us to speculate as to how or why one of ordinary skill in
the art would modify Jordan to meet limitation ii recited in claim 1, and the
commensurate limitations recited in claims 17 and 18. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999)
(unpublished) (“The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is not a process
whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application
and resolve patentability in the first instance.”).
In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellant’s contentions
(Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner has not adequately
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

8

shown that Jordan alone or in combination with Vitek teaches or suggests
limitation ii of claim 1, and the commensurate limitations recited in claims
17 and 18.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner
(i) incorrectly relies upon Jordan to teach or suggest limitation ii in claim 1,
and the commensurate limitations recited in claims 17 and 18; and thus, (ii)
has not properly established factual determinations and articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
for claims 1, 17, and 18, resulting in a failure to establish a prima facie of
obviousness. The Examiner has not sufficiently shown the combination of
applied references teaches or suggests limitation ii recited in claim 1, and as
commensurately recited in claims 17 and 18.
As a result, based on the record before us, Appellant has shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 18, and thus
claims 3–12 depending from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 17–21
over Jordan.4 For similar reasons, because claims 13–16 ultimately depend
from claim 1, and based on Appellant’s reliance on the arguments presented
as to claim 1 as to the patentability of claims 13–16, we, likewise, cannot

4 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments concerning the obviousness
rejections present additional issues (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br.
4–6) (arguing limitations from dependent claims 3, 12, and 21). Because we
were persuaded of error by the issue regarding limitation ii, as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 17 and 18, we do not reach the
additional issues (e.g., such as to limitations of the dependent claims), as the
issue as to limitation ii is dispositive of the appeal.

Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

9

sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13–16 over the same
base reference to Jordan, further in view of Vitek.

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows:
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–12, 17–
21
103 Jordan 1, 3–12, 17–
21
13–16 103 Jordan, Vitek 13–16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–21

REVERSED

Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

10

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, and 18. The majority bases their reversal upon a
lack of the Examiner mapping the teachings of the Jordan reference to the
claimed invention. The majority states:
Without specifically mapping the cited portions of Jordan
to the recited first and second users, the Examiner further
determines that (i) Jordan’s creation of maps as parts of stories,
and add-on maps, allows users to track media content within the
stories (see Ans. 10–11); and (ii) “Jordan expressly teaches that
multiple users can be creators to create stories” (Ans. 11 citing
Jordan ¶ 29). However, Jordan is silent as to allowing a second
user to track/use content from a first (and different) user/creator,
as set forth in Appellant’s claims.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how one
would modify Jordan, or why it would be obvious, to perform
the operation of limitation ii in claim 1 (allowing a second user
to create content based on transmedia content data items of a first
user through the use of a pointer). Although Jordan’s invention
allows a user to track data items, e.g., characters in a Batman
story, used for creating a story using a relational database (see
Jordan ¶¶ 19, 20), Jordan is silent as to tracking users/creators for
purposes of generating non-linear transmedia content data items
and using a pointer, as claimed. Therefore, regarding limitation
ii in claim 1, and the commensurate limitations found in claims
17 and 18, the Examiner makes insufficient findings as to
how/why Jordan discloses, teaches, or suggests allowing a
second user to create content based on transmedia content data
items of a first user by using a pointer as required by claims 1,
17, and 18 (see, e.g., claim 1, limitation ii). At best, the
Examiner’s proposed combination leaves us to speculate as to
how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jordan
to meet limitation ii recited in claim 1, and the commensurate
limitations recited in claims 17 and 18. See In re Warner, 379
F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI
1999) (unpublished) (“The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§]
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

11

134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the
[B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in
the first instance.”).
Dec. 6–7.
I disagree with the majority that “Jordan is silent as to allowing a
second user to track/use content from a first (and different) user/creator, as
set forth in Appellant’s claims.” Dec. 6. I find that the Examiner’s findings
are supported by the Jordan reference and based upon the broadest
reasonable interpretation of independent claim 1 with a second user, the
claim language would only require two pieces of transmedia content data
items. In the relational database of the Jordan reference, the first transmedia
content data item would be stored and the second user second transmedia
content data item would refer back to the first transmedia content data item
with the use of a pointer.
Additionally, the majority finds that “Jordan is silent as to tracking
users/creators for purposes of generating non-linear transmedia content data
items and using a pointer.” Dec. 7. Again, I disagree with the majority and
find that (i) the claim language only requires the pointer point to a single
transmedia content data item, and (ii) the combination of the first and second
transmedia content data items teaches and suggests the claimed “creating an
ordered group of transmedia content data items.” I find the first and second
transmedia content data items form “the ordered group of transmedia content
data items.” Consequently, I disagree with the majority’s findings regarding
the Examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

12

For completeness, I address Appellant’s arguments below.
I find that Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of independent claims 1, 17, and 18. Therefore, I select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group.
Appellant provides a “Discussion Of The Claimed Techniques In
Light Of The Specification.” Appeal Br. 7–10. I note that Appellant’s
discussion attempts to define “transmedia” with regards to “content data
items” comprising a plurality of different multimedia types citing
Specification paragraph 43, but I note that Appellant’s proffered
interpretation is contrary its use and definition of the term in the Background
section of the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 4 (“The content can be of many
different forms, known collectively as ‘transmedia’ content’” without the
requirement of plural different multimedia types in each content data item.).
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant argues
that the Jordan reference fails to teach or suggest several elements of the
claim 1 including “receiving second instructions from a second user for
creating an ordered group of transmedia content data items, the ordered
group comprising a pointer to the transmedia content data item of the first
user,” and “assigning a unique identifier to the transmedia content data item”
as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
Specifically, Appellant contends that Jordan fails to teach or suggest
“receiving second instructions from a second user for creating an ordered
group of transmedia content data items, the ordered group comprising a
pointer to the transmedia content data item of the first user” as recited by
claim 1. Appellant addresses paragraphs 5, 25–28, and 49 of the Jordan
reference for the step of “receiving second instructions.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

13

Appellant further contends that “[w]hile the Office may infer that various
users may interact with the mapping system, such an inference is not
supported by the disclosure of Jordan. . . . Jordan is silent as to a second user
creating an ordered group of transmedia content items using a pointer to
transmedia content of the first user.” Appeal Br. 11–12.
I disagree with Appellant and find that the disclosure of the use of a
relational database in paragraph 20 of the Jordan reference teaches and
suggests the use of pointers from one data item to another data item.
Furthermore, the scope of the claim 1 only requires the first and second
transmedia content data items with a single pointer. I find that the Jordan
reference clearly teaches and suggests the claimed “creating an ordered
group of transmedia content data items, the ordered group comprising a
pointer to the transmedia content data item of the first user.” See Final Act.
3 citing Jordan ¶ 20 for the “storing” and “assigning” steps. I find the
assignment of a “unique identifier” in a relational database in the second
step of the claimed method and in fourth step the “second user for creating
the ordered group” would use the well-known pointers in the disclosed
relational databases. As a result, I find that the Examiner’s factual findings
support the obviousness conclusion, and Appellant’s argument does not
show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness
of this element of the claimed invention.
Appellant further argues:
The Office acknowledges that Jordan fails to expressly
disclose “assigning a unique identifier to the transmedia content
data item” but asserts that Jordan teaches a relational database
to store data in general. See Office Action, p. 3. The Office further
argues, “it is well-known [in] the art to assign a unique identifier
to data object in a relational database.” See id., p. 4. In effect, the
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

14

Office appears to be making an inherency argument that a
relational database inherently assigns a unique identifier to data
objects. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection at least
because the Office has not met its burden to fully develop reasons
supporting its reliance on the doctrine of inherency.
Appeal Br. 12.
First, I do not find that the Examiner has based the rejection upon
“inherency,” but the Examiner has based the rejection upon obviousness and
the well-known use of relational databases as disclosed in the Jordan
reference.
Second, the Examiner finds that the Jordan reference teaches the use
of relational databases and a plurality of different users including a second
user. Final Act. 3.
Appellant does not explicitly define a “pointer” in the Specification.
Spec. ¶¶ 7, 10, 136, 140. “Pointer” has a well-understood meaning as the
Examiner has attempted to define in the Answer —
“A relational database is a type of database that stores and
provides access to data points that are related to one another.
Relational databases are based on the relational model, an
intuitive, straightforward way of representing data in tables. In
a relational database, each row in the table is a record with a
unique ID called the key. The columns of the table hold attributes
of the data, and each record usually has a value for each attribute,
making it easy to establish the relationships among data points.”
(See e.g. “What a Relational Database IS” available at
https://www.oracle.com/database/what-is-a-relational-
database/) Therefore, based on the teachings of Jordan, it would
have been obvious to assign a unique ID to data items that are
stored in database.
Ans. 12. Thus, I broadly but reasonably construe “a pointer to the
transmedia content data item of the first user” to mean a pointer from the
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

15

second transmedia content data item to the first transmedia content data
item. This construction corresponds with the ordinary meaning of “pointer”
as used with a relational database, as well as Appellant’s Specification.5
I disagree with Appellant’s argument and find that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “receiving second
instructions from a second user for creating an ordered group of transmedia
content data items, the ordered group comprising a pointer to the transmedia
content data item of the first user” only first and second transmedia content
data items are required by the claim language which is an ordered group
with a pointer to the transmedia content item of the first user using the
relational database of the Jordan reference.
Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability context, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,] . . . limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Moreover, I do not find that the Examiner is speculating, but rather
Appellant is attempting to read limitations into the claims, limitations which
are not expressly found in the language of independent claim 1.
Furthermore, based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed invention that only sets forth two transmedia content data items,
creating a necessary ordered group is formed between the first transmedia

5 I further note that “unique identifier” is similarly not defined in the
Specification and its limited use is found in the same locations as “pointer.”
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

16

content data items and the second transmedia content data items which
would teach or suggest the claimed “creating an ordered group of transmedia
content data items, the ordered group comprising a pointer to the transmedia
content data item of the first user.”
Additionally, this ordered group between two transmedia content data
items is a “time-ordered group” because the first data item must always
proceed to the second data item with only to data items. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings
or conclusion of obviousness.
With respect to Appellant’s second argument regarding “inherency,” I
do not find the Examiner has based the rejection on “inherency,” as in an
anticipation rejection, but has relied upon a finding that a pointer is a well-
known data construct used within the relational databases with alternative
versions of story lines.
I further agree with the Examiner that pointers are notoriously well-
known constructs used with relational databases as taught by the Jordan
reference which would include pointers from one database to a another
database or data element to data element without the need to make multiple
copies of data. As a result, I find Appellant’s general argument to
“inherency” to not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or ultimate
conclusion of obviousness of the use of a pointer as taught or suggested by
the Jordan.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents general arguments for
patentability of independent claim 1 referring to the claim language and
repeating the citations to the Jordan reference and contending that the Jordan
reference does not “create links” and “Jordan does not teach that a second
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

17

user can create links to a first user’s content.” Reply Br. 3. I find
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the express
language of representative independent claim 1 because only one link is
required in the ordered group and the claim does not recite “links.”6
With regard to Appellant’s second argument regarding “assigning a
unique identifier,” in the Reply Brief, Appellant presents the same argument
regarding the “relational database” and contends that the proffered definition
of a relational database by Oracle is not met by a “key” by the Jordan
reference, but Appellant provides no detailed explanation to support this
contention. I disagree with Appellant’s general argument for patentability
and do not find it to be persuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual finding
or reasoned conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim
1. Because I disagree with the majority’s finding of a need for speculation,
and I find Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness, I would sustain the
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent
claims 17 and 18 which are not separately argued and of their dependent
claims which are not separately argued.

Dependent claim 3
Appellant separately argues dependent claim 3. The Examiner
provides limited factual findings to support the obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 3 with only the statement “the step of creating an ordered

6 If Appellant desires “more than one” or “two or more” links in the
“ordered group,” Appellant should amend the claims to distinctly recite that
feature.
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

18

group comprises creating linking-data defining time-ordered links between
the transmedia content data items in the ordered group (see e.g. para
[26][39]).” Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not made sufficient showing
in paragraphs 26 and 39 of the Jordan reference. Appellant contends that
“the chronological mapping data only appears to concern a timeline of a
story because Jordan is solely concerned with ‘maintaining consistency
through the story’ (see paragraph [39]), and thus, to avoid conflicting story-
lines, there is no user freedom in the arrangement of transmedia content as
per the present invention.” Appeal Br. 14.
I agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made the requisite
showing for the step of creating an ordered group comprising creating
linking data defining time-ordered links. Although there is a time order
between two pieces of data, that time order does not necessarily teach or
suggest a specific step of “creating linking data defining time-ordered links.”
The Examiner provides citations to paragraphs 21 and 29 regarding
advertising data that can be moved across multiple versions of story. Ans.
12–13. In the Reply Brief, Appellant addresses those two citations and
contends that the Office has failed to address how the advertisement meets
the element of a “time-ordered links.” Reply Br. 4.
I agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided a requisite
factual findings or line of reasoning showing of the step of “creating linking-
data defining time-ordered links between the transmedia content data items
in the ordered group,” and I would not sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 3 for this reason.

Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

19

Dependent claim 12
With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 12,
which recites “creating linking-data defining a time-ordered link,” the
Examiner provides the same citations to the advertising as discussed above
with respect to dependent claim 3 which I found to be insufficient to support
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Consequently, I similarly would
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 12 for the same
reasons as dependent claim 3.

Dependent claim 21
With respect to dependent claim 21, Appellant argues that the Jordan
reference does not teach or suggest all the elements of claim 21, and Jordan
fails to teach or suggest “unique identifier is used to track a version of the
transmedia content data item.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant repeats the
portions of the Jordan reference and relies upon the arguments advanced
with respect to representative independent claim 1 that Jordan does not teach
a “unique identifier” as argued in Section IV(B)(2) with respect to
independent claim 1 of the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 16. In the Reply Brief,
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not respond to Appellant’s argument.
Reply Br. 6.
I note that Appellant’s argument was addressed by the Examiner with
regards to representative independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner did
address the argument, but did not repeat it again under the heading for
dependent claim 21. Appellant’s argument was the same as the argument
advanced with respect to independent claim 1. As a result, Appellant’s
argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
Appeal 2020-004888
Application 15/715,898

20

conclusion of obviousness, and Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 21.

Summary
As a result, I disagree with the majority’s reversal of all the claims.
Rather, I would affirm the rejection of representative independent claim 1
and independent claims 17 and 18 not separately argued. Because Appellant
has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 4–
11, 13–16, 19, and 20, I would group these claims as falling with
representative independent claim 1.
Because Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings
and conclusion of obviousness of dependent claims 3 and 12, I would
reverse those obviousness rejections, but Appellant did not show error in the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 21, and I would sustain the
obviousness rejection dependent claim 21.