Ex Parte Aydar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 2014

11740905 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

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. 11/740,905 04/26/2007 Ali Aydar 257.49-US-U1 2000 105454 7590 09/29/2014 Gates & Cooper LLP - Specific Media/Myspace 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90045 EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALI AYDAR, DAVID ROWLEY, JORDAN MENDELSON, RICHARD FLETCHER, DANIEL RACANELLI, and JASON TOFFALETTI ____________________ Appeal 2012-002848 Application 11/740,9051 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–17 and 19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is MySpace Music, LLC” (Br. 2). 2 Claim 18 was canceled September 21, 2011 in an amendment filed after the Examiner’s Answer was mailed. The amendment was entered by the Examiner on November 16, 2011. Appeal 2012-002848 Application 11/740,905 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving information from a plurality of entities which each has an interest in at least one corresponding digital asset; and utilizing the information, populating a plurality of interfaces each associated with at least one of the entities, for facilitating transactions involving the at least one corresponding digital asset. Rejections3 The Appellants request our review of the following Examiner’s rejections: claims 1–17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DeMello (US 2002/0002540 A1, pub. Jan. 3, 2002); and claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting ineligible subject matter. ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 19 together (Br. 5). We select claim 1 as representative. No substantive argument is set forth for dependent claims 2 or 7–17, so these claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 3 To facilitate our analysis, we set forth the rejections in a different order than the order presented in the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2012-002848 Application 11/740,905 3 The Appellants assert DeMello: . . . allows the user to select from a dynamically updatable list of links, and allows users to navigate through those links, but does not teach or suggest populating that third party site with a user interface dealing with digital assets of the third party (i.e., the third party does not provide such information to the service that would then populate it's site with information related to the asset itself). Br. 5. The Examiner determines that this assertion is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1 because the claim does not require a “third party site.” Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner’s determination. Claim 1 recites “utilizing the information, populating a plurality of interfaces each associated with at least one of the entities, for facilitating transactions involving the at least one corresponding digital asset,” hereinafter “the utilizing step.” The Examiner correctly finds “that a [hypertext] link to a provider is an interface associated with a provider” (id.) constitutes the utilizing step. A hypertext link is a type of interface to an information location. DeMello discloses an application that “renders on the user’s machine a web page containing a list of retail web sites” (para. 9). For the foregoing reason, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 2, 7–17, and 19. Rejection of claims 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Appellants argue claims 3–6 together as a group. We select claim 3 as representative. Br. 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Appellants assert, “DeMello does not, as the claims require, describe a service that handles population of interfaces dealing with the digital assets themselves of Appeal 2012-002848 Application 11/740,905 4 third parties (rather than the third parties doing it themselves).” Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Similar to the analysis above with regard to the rejection of claim 1, this assertion is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1, because the claim does not require “populating interfaces dealing with the digital assets themselves of third parties.” Ans. 13. Instead, dependent claim 3 recites, “displaying a plurality of available digital assets in which the logged entity has an interest, utilizing a graphical user interface,” hereinafter “the displaying step.” In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 11 and 29 (see Ans. 7–10). In these paragraphs, DeMello discloses, in addition to displaying links, displaying information about digital assets themselves (para. 29) in product catalogues (para. 11), which corresponds with the displaying step. Also, the catalog publisher has an interest in the digital assets, because they sell them. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 3–6. Rejection of claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that claim 1 recites eligible subject matter because a “user interface is a physical portal into the digital experience, and must rely on physical apparatuses in order to function.” Br. 4. The assertion is not commensurate in scope with the language of the claims, which instead recite only “populating a plurality of interfaces.” As determined by the Examiner, the term “interface” broadly “includes anything under the sun that serves as a point of contact between Appeal 2012-002848 Application 11/740,905 5 two things.” Ans. 12. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites “no particular machine or apparatus, and there is no indication that the method is directed to anything but an abstract idea.” Ans. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting ineligible subject matter in the form of an abstract idea. We also affirm the rejection of dependent claims 2–17, because they were not separately argued. Br. 4. DECISION4 We affirm the rejection of claims 1–17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the rejection of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh 4 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.