Ex Parte Zuckerberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13092443 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
13/092,443 04/22/2011 Mark Zuckerberg 079894.0287 6569
91230 7590 03/22/2017
Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE OSMAN, RAMY M
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ZUCKERBERG,
AARON SITTIG, and SCOTT MARLETTE
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—14, 16, and 18—23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the “invention relates generally to
internet digital content, and more particularly to systems and methods for
tagging digital media.” Spec. 12.2 The Specification explains that the
“method includes selecting a digital media and selecting [a] region within
the digital media” and may “further include associating a person or entity
with the selected region and sending a notification of the association [to] the
person or entity or a different person or entity.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows, with italics indicating the
limitations at issue in claim 1:
1. A method comprising:
by a computer system, receiving first input from a first
user selecting an item of digital media;
by the computer system, receiving second input from the
first user selecting a point within the item of digital media;
by the computer system and in response to receiving the
second input from the first user, automatically determining a
bounded two-dimensional region of the item of digital media
relative to the selected point based on at least one property of
the item of digital media, the at least one property of the item of
digital media comprising at least one of contrast, brightness,
color, and size;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed April 22, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed November 28, 2014; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 7,
2015; and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 5, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
by the computer system, receiving third input from the
first user indicating a tag for the item of digital media, the tag
comprising contact information of a second user, the contact
information comprising a hyperlink associated with the second
user within a social-networking system;
by the computer system, associating the tag with the
bounded two-dimensional region of the item of digital media;
by the computer system, providing the item of digital
media with the tag for display to one or more users; and
by the computer system, providing for transmission to the
second user a notification of the tag being associated with the
item of digital media.
Br. 10 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Murphy US 2003/0076363 A1
Pezaris et al. (“Pezaris”) US 2005/0198305 A1
Lunt et al. (“Lunf’) US 2005/0235062 Al
Leebow US 2008/0077595 Al
Apr. 24, 2003
Sept. 8, 2005
Oct. 20, 2005
Mar. 27, 2008
Ben Shneiderman & Hyunmo Kang, Direct Annotation: A Drag-and-Drop
Strategy for Labeling Photos, Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Information Visualization 88-95 (2000)
(“Shneiderman”)
Risto Sarvas et al., MobShare: Controlled and Immediate Sharing of
Mobile Images, Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM International
Conference on Multimedia 724—31 (2004) (“Sarvas”)
Geetesh Bajaj, Using Hotspots in Snaglt, Indezine (Feb. 25, 2009),
http://www.indezine.com/products/other/snagithotspots.html (“Bajaj”)
3
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,3, 5—8, 11—13, 16, and 18—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Leebow, Murphy, Bajaj, and Shneiderman.
Final Act. 2—6; Ans. 3—7.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman, and Pezaris. Final Act. 7; Ans. 7.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman, and Sarvas. Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 8.
Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman, and Lunt. Final Act. 8;
Ans. 8—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5—14, 16, and 18—23
in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons
explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by
the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2—8) and Answer (Ans. 3—10). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5—8, 11—13, 16, and 18—22 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Leebow, Murphy, Bajaj, and Shneiderman
Automatically Determining a Bounded Two-Dimensional
Region Based on Contrast, Brightness, Color, or Size
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 because Leebow, Murphy, Bajaj, and Shneiderman:
whether taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest
at least “automatically determining a bounded two-dimensional
region of the item of digital media relative to the selected point
4
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
based on at least one property of the item of digital media, the
at least one property of the item of digital media comprising at
least one of contrast, brightness, color, and size” as Claim 1
recites.
Br. 6.
Appellants point out that the Examiner cites Murphy for claim 1 ’s
“automatically determining” limitation. Br. 6. Appellants assert that
Murphy “describes that a region 315 is selected relative to cursor position
331 and copied identically into a video memory.” Id. at 7. Appellants then
assert that Murphy “fails to disclose or suggest that (as an initial step) the
selection of region 315, including the region’s shape, size, or other features,
is based on ‘at least one of [the] contrast, brightness, color, and size’ of
original background image 310.” Id. According to Appellants, Murphy
“fails to provide any description whatsoever as to how the bounds of region
315 are determined” and instead “appears to assume that region 315 is of a
standard size that has already somehow been determined.” Id.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error.
“[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Examiner explains that
“the claims are broadly worded and are thus given their broadest reasonable
interpretation.” Ans. 9. The Examiner also explains that the claimed
automatic determination of a two-dimensional region “based on” contrast,
brightness, color, or size “allows for a wide variety of readings and
interpretations in regards to how the ‘based on’ is actually implemented.”
Id.
5
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
The Examiner then finds that Murphy discloses that the display’s
selected region 315 corresponding to the display’s magnified portion 320
“is determined using formulas” discussed in Murphy. Ans. 9-10 (citing
Murphy | 19, Fig. 3); see Final Act. 3 (citing Murphy || 18—20). The
Examiner also finds that the selected region’s size is determined based on
the cursor’s position vis-a-vis the background image’s edges using formulas
discussed in Murphy. Ans. 10 (citing Murphy || 23—24 et seq., Fig. 5). The
background image’s edges define its size. For instance, various equations in
Murphy rely on the background image’s edges XBi and XB2 corresponding to
AX2 to determine the selected region’s location in the display. See, e.g.,
Murphy || 24—31, 37, Fig. 5. Thus, the Examiner finds that “Murphy
clearly shows that the two-dimensional bounded region is selected based
upon the size of the image.” Ans. 10. Appellants did not submit a Reply
Brief and did not address the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants also argue that the other references fail to disclose or
suggest the claimed subject matter missing from Murphy. Br. 7. As
explained above, however, Murphy discloses the allegedly missing subject
matter.
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Feebow, Murphy, Bajaj, and Shneiderman. Hence, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
Independent Claim 16 and Dependent Claims 3,5-8,11-13, and 18-22
Appellants contend that “independent claim 16 also is allowable over”
the references “for similar reasons” as claim 1. Br. 8. Appellants do not
present any separate patentability arguments for claim 16. Id. In addition,
Appellants do not present any separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 3, 5—8,11—13, and 18—22. Id. Because Appellants do not
argue the claims separately, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3,
5—8,11—13,16, and 18—22 based on Leebow, Murphy, Bajaj, and
Shneiderman. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejections of Claims 9, 10, 14, and 23 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Based on Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman, and Another Reference
For the obviousness rejections of: claim 9 based on Leebow, Bajaj,
Shneiderman, and Pezaris; claim 10 based on Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman,
and Sarvas; and claims 14 and 23 based on Leebow, Bajaj, Shneiderman,
and Lunt, Appellants argue that the claims “are allowable ... at least by
virtue of their ultimate dependency from one of independent Claims 1
and 16.” Br. 8. Appellants do not present any separate patentability
arguments for dependent claims 9, 10, 14, and 23. Id. Because Appellants
do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 9, 10, 14, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5—14, 16, and
18-23.
7
Appeal 2016-006464
Application 13/092,443
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8