Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

13076937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/076,937 03/31/2011 Ling Jun Wong 51518 7590 03/29/2019 MA YER & WILLIAMS PC 55 Madison A venue Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 201003457.02 4692 EXAMINER HUYNH, AN SON PHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): docket@mwpatentlaw.com mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LING JUN WONG, CHARLES MCCOY, and TRUE XIONG Appeal2018-004522 1 Application 13/076,937 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, and 39. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation and Sony Network Entertainment International LLC as the real parties in interest. Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS Claims 18-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 9. Claims 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, and 39 are rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over Ketkar (US 2012/0030586 Al; pub. Feb. 2, 2012) and Drummond et al. (US 2011/0078717 Al; pub. Mar. 31, 2011, hereinafter "Drummond"). Final Act. 10-31. Claims 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, and 39 are rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over Olague et al. (US 2010/0192180 Al; pub. July 29, 2010, hereinafter "Olague") and Conness et al. (US 2009/0133069 Al; pub. May 21, 2009, hereinafter "Conness"), further in view of Ahrens et al. (US 2012/0005224 Al; pub. Jan. 5, 2012, hereinafter "Ahrens") or Roberts et al. (US 2011/0126252 Al; pub. May 26, 2011, hereinafter "Roberts"). Final Act. 31-54. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to social networking feedback via second display selections. Spec. Title. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method of playing a content item on a content playback platform using a second display, compnsmg: 1. instantiating an application on the second display; ii. establishing a browsing session between a second display and a source of content through a management server using the instantiated application, the application facilitating browsing and selection of a content item on the source of content by a user, the 2 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 second display using the authentication credentials of the content playback platform, such that the second display appears to the source of content as an authenticated content playback platform; 111. loading an identifier of the content item in the application on the second display; iv. using the application, causing the content item to play back in a content playback platform; v. tracking data associated with the browsing and playback; vi. using the second display to populate a feed with the tracked data, wherein the feed includes tags compliant with an API exposed by a server operated by a social networking service, and wherein the feed further includes data pertaining to the user, the tracked data, and a platform object configured to provide, upon activation of the platform object, information about the content playback platform; vii. using the second display to transmit the feed to the at least one social networking service, such that the feed is incorporated into one or more pages of the social networking service as native social networking content; and vii. receiving, on the second display, at least one comment regarding the data included in the feed in response to the feed being transmitted to the social networking service, wherein the comment is created by another user of the social networking service. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Exparte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 3 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 ANALYSIS THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 18-22, 24, AND 25 The Examiner concludes claims 18-22, 24, and 25 are indefinite. Final Act. 9. In particular, the Examiner explains the following: "[c]laim 18 recit[ing] the limitation 'the content playback platform' in line 24 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation refers to 'a content playback platform' in line 1 or 'a content playback platform' recited in line 11." Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 47--48. 2 Appellants present the following principal argument: It is clear in subparagraph ii that the "such that" clause is explaining the effect of the use of the authentication credential of the content playback platform, and consequently the two uses of the term content playback platform is such that the latter is referring back to the former. Regarding the use of the term "content playback platform" in subparagraph iv, as the application in subparagraph ii is that which allowed the browsing and selection of a content item, and since subparagraph iv refers to a content item chosen on a second display, Appellant notes that it is clear that it is again the same content playback platform as introduced in subparagraph ii. App. Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion of indefiniteness. First, we note that "a content playback platform" is recited in lines 6 and 11 of claim 18, and not in lines 1 and 11 of claim 18. Finally, regarding the recitation of "the content playback platform" in line 24 of claim 18, we agree with the Examiner that it is unclear whether this limitation refers to "a content playback platform" in line 6 or in line 11 of claim 18. 2 The line numbers here and below refer to claim 1 as presented in the Claims Appendix filed on December 6, 201 7, rather than to claim 1 as reproduced in this decision. 4 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18-22, 24, and 25. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, AND 39 OVER KETKAR AND DRUMMOND FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds Ketkar and Drummond teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 10-17. In particular, the Examiner finds Ketkar teaches the key disputed limitation, referring to Ketkar's "PIN, access code, setting information, authentication information of and/or shared with the content playback platform for authentication." Final Act. 11-12; see also Ketkar ,r 78 ("[T]he login may require a user name and password."); and Ans. 49- 51. Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. Appellant respectfully submits that the claimed authentication credential cannot be interpreted as being nothing more than an authorization credential of the type that is used in access control to online resources. The Office Action has merely pointed to sections of Ketkar and Olague that show authorization credentials. They do not show the use of an authentication credential, as required by the claims of the present invention. App. Br. 9. 11. [W]hile the [Ketkar] reference discloses that a user may enter certain information that allows multiple social networks to be accessed, such is considerably different from one device using the authentication credential of a different device. For example, there is no "tying" of a usemame and password to a particular 5 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 device, and thus it is not an authentication credential of that device. App. Br. 11. 111. "[T]he Examiner has not provided sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references." App. Br. 13. a. "[T]he reasoning given is not articulated and explicit because it simply assumes that items such as password, PIN, and the like constitute the authentication credential." App. Br. 14. b. [Regarding the reasoning given to combine Ketkar and Drummond, I]t is not clear how providing content regarding the content playback device would either improve security or allow the targeting of content suitable for the playback device. Regarding the latter, as an analogy, if a first friend tells a second friend that the first friend has a Chevy automobile, it does not follow that the second friend should receive targeted content suitable for Chevys, and yet such would be the inevitable result of the proposed reasoning. App. Br. 14. c. "[T]here is no reason given in the Office Action to combine Ketkar and Drummond with respect to element (1) for which Drummond is offered, namely the second display using the authentication credential of the content playback device." App. Br. 14. OuRREVIEW We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Ketkar discloses "F[ig]. 7 shows login prompt 702 for the user to login to his social network. In some embodiments, the login may require a 6 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 usemame and a password. The authentication process helps prevent unauthorized access to the user's social network profile." Ketkar ,r 78. We adopt the plain meaning of "authentication" in a computer context, which is "[i]n a multiuser or network operating system, the process by which the system validates a user's logon information. A user's name and password are compared against an authorized list, and if the system detects a match, access is granted to the extent specified in the permission list for that user." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 42 (5th ed. 2002). Thus, we construe "authentication credentials" as encompassing a usemame and password. Any further restriction on way the "authentication credentials" are used is provided by the remaining claim language. Contrary to Appellants' argument (i), given our construction of "authentication credentials," Ketkar's disclosure of a usemame and password reasonably describes "authentication credentials." Turning to Appellants' argument (ii) and the actual language of the key disputed limitation, we agree with the Examiner that Ketkar describes the key disputed limitation, as broadly drafted. In particular, we have reviewed and understand the description in Appellants' Specification at paragraph 4 7, describing the second display receiving a "token associated with a content playback device, and this token gets communicated in future transactions between the second display and the proxy server." Spec. ,r 4 7. However, we decline to import this subject matter into claim 1. Claim 1 is broader than the description at paragraph 4 7 of the Specification, and the broad claim language reads on the disclosures in the prior art. In short, Ketkar describes "the second display using the authentication credentials of the content playback platform, such that the second display 7 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 appears to the source of content as an authenticated content playback platform" because at a display where the user enters the usemame and password, the submission of the usemame and password gives the appearance of being an authenticated content playback platform as claimed. Ketkar ,r 4 7. Put another way, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope with the actual claim language, and we decline to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. Regarding Appellants' argument (iii), the Examiner has provided a reason for combining the teachings of Drummond with the teachings of Ketkar that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 16-17 ("[P]redictable results such as improving security or targeting content suitable for the playback device"); see also Ans. 51-52; and Drummond, Abstract ("Methods and systems that allow a user to notify other users in a community group about the availability of program segments in which the other users may have an interest are provided."). Thus, Appellants' general allegation that there is no reason to combine is unpersuasive. Appellants' specific arguments are addressed below. Regarding Appellants' argument (iii) (a), this argument is unavailing given our construction of "authentication credentials" above, and our finding that Ketkar teaches the key disputed limitation. Regarding Appellants' argument (iii) (b ), this argument is also unavailing. Ketkar discloses "[a] social media guidance application may be integrated with one or more social networks associated with a user." Ketkar Abstract ( emphasis added). Drummond discloses "[ m ]ethods and systems that allow a user to notify other users in a community group about the availability of program segments in which the other users may have an 8 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 interest are provided." Drummond Abstract (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that providing "information about the content playback platform" as taught by Drummond, in Ketkar, yields predictable results. Final Act. 16-17. Put another way, Ketkar already teaches sharing information on social networks (Ketkar, Abstract), the teachings of Drummond relate to the particulars of the information to be shared. Thus, the combined teachings of Ketkar and Drummond yield the predictable result of sharing Drummond's information in Ketkar's social network. See Final Act. 16-17. Regarding Appellants argument (iii) ( c ), we find this argument unavailing given our finding that Ketkar teaches the key disputed limitation. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, and 39, which are not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, AND 39 OVER OLAGUE AND CONNESS, FURTHER IN VIEW OF AHRENS OR ROBERTS FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds Olague and Conness, further in view of Ahrens or Roberts, teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 31-39. In particular, the Examiner finds Olague teaches the key disputed limitation. Final Act. 33- 34. Among other arguments, Appellants present the following principal argument: The cited sections of Olague relate to a media guidance application, and is particularly related to determining if a viewer can watch particular channels according to a subscription. A 9 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 remote media guidance application is contemplated; in this case the remote media guidance application accesses a source device to determine subscription status. In the end, the television equipment is instructed to tune to one or more channels associated with the package data. That is, the television equipment is performing the communications with the content source. Thus, again, it is not the case that a second display application is appearing to a content source as an authenticated playback device. Rather, the playback device is simply appearing as itself i.e., the television equipment is appearing as itself to the source device. Even where the remote media guidance application is determining subscription status on a target device, it is the target device that is instructed to tune to particular channels [0124]. That is, the target device is requesting channel access and permission on its own, once the channel switch instruction is received. App. Br. 12. OuRREVIEW We find the Examiner erred in finding Olague teaches the key disputed limitation. Olague discloses "[t]he media guidance application, implemented on, for example, a remote system, may determine through communications with television equipment whether or not the television equipment is authorized to provide a particular package of television programming to be viewed by the user." Olague, Abstract. Olague discloses In step 1204, the target device is instructed to tune to the first channel in the list ( which was generated in step 1112 of FIG. 11 ). The target media guidance application may receive the instruction to tune from, for example, the remote media guidance application or a user input interface. 10 Appeal2018-004522 Application 13/076,937 Olague ,r 124 ( emphasis added). The Examiner maps Olague's remote media guidance application to the "second display." Final Act. 32. The key disputed claim limitation requires "the second display using the authentication credentials of the content playback platform, such that the second display appears to the source of content as an authenticated content playback platform." However, we agree with Appellants that the remote media guidance application (second display) in Olague does not use the authentication credentials of the content playback platform because in Olague it is the target device that actually requests channel access. See Olague ,r 124. Notably, the Examiner does not provide any response in the Examiner's Answer with respect to Olague. See Ans. 48-52. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or of independent claims 13, 18, and 26, which recite the same key disputed limitation or an essentially similar limitation. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6-12, 14--17, 19-22, 24, 25, 28-36, 38, and 39, which variously depend from claims 1, 13, 18, and 26. ORDER Because we sustain at least one ground of rejection for each claim, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-22, 24--26, 28-36, 38, and 39 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 11