Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2019004300 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
15/370,594 12/06/2016 George Lewis Kedenburg III 19487.616 8109
107193 7590 11/03/2020
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
KIM, WILLIAM JW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
ljohnson@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte GEORGE LEWIS KEDENBURG III

Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594
Technology Center 2400

Before JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 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 Facebook,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to generating and distributing
a live poll in conjunction with simultaneously providing a live video stream
being captured and broadcast to viewers. Appeal Br. 1.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a server device, a video stream captured by a
camera on a broadcaster client device;
providing, to a plurality of viewer client devices, the video
stream received from the broadcaster client device;
while providing the video stream to the plurality of viewer
client devices:
receiving, from the broadcaster client device, a live poll
request related to the video stream received from the
broadcaster client device;
in response to receiving the live poll request for the video
stream, providing, for display on the broadcaster client
device together with the video stream, a poll creation
interface comprising a question input prompt;
receiving, from the broadcaster client device, a question
creation input corresponding to the question input
prompt;
based on receiving the question creation input from the
broadcaster client device, generating, at the server device
by at least one processor, a poll data structure to store
poll information for a live poll corresponding to the video
stream received from the broadcaster client device in
accordance with the question input prompt and the
corresponding question creation input; and
in response to generating the poll data structure,
providing, to the plurality of viewer client devices, a live poll
indication that causes each of the plurality of viewer client
devices to present a graphical poll interface together with a
presentation of the video stream.
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

3
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Independent claims 17 and 19 recite a system
and storage medium, respectively, having limitations similar to those of
claim 1. Id. at 33–35. Dependent claims 2–16, 18, and 20 each incorporate
the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 28–36.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Douglis et al.
(Douglis)
US 2005/0065632 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Morrison et al.
(Morrison)
US 2008/0065507 A1 Mar. 13, 2008
Aldrey et al.
(Aldrey)
US 2008/0086742 A1 Apr. 10, 2008
Kim US 2009/0019467 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Zuckerberg et al.
(Zuckerberg)
US 2009/0037277 A1 Feb. 5, 2009
Dey US 2010/0161635 A1 June 24, 2010
Rowley et al.
(Rowley)
US 2012/0204202 A1 Aug. 9, 2012
Sinha et al.
(Sinha)
US 2013/0205322 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Gresta US 2013/0312041 A1 Nov. 21, 2013
Kalmes et al.
(Kalmes)
US 2014/0215506 A1 July 31, 2014
Rouady et al.
(Rouady)
US 2016/0366464 A1 Dec. 15, 2016

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg.
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

4
II. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg, further in
view of Kim.
III. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg, further in
view of Gresta and Morrison.
IV. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg, further in
view of Rowley.
V. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and
Zuckerberg, further in view of Kalmes.
VI. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Sinha, Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg, further in
view of Douglis.

OPINION
I. Obviousness Rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12, and 17–20
With respect to claim 1, the issue is whether the combination of
applied references teaches or suggests a system that enables a single
broadcaster device to create, distribute, and administer a live poll to an
audience of viewers while simultaneously capturing and broadcasting a live
video stream. Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Examiner finds Sinha to describe a single broadcaster device,
comprising an interactive director 150 that receives a network/broadcast
feed, an app server 140, a real-time event manager 110, fingerprint servers
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

5
120, fingerprint matching systems 130, and service provider 180, that
provides broadcast video to client devices in conjunction with interactive
events. Ans. 5. The Examiner notes that Sinha contemplates a single
centralized machine for these functions. Id. The Examiner further finds
Sinha to describe broadcasting a live program and receiving a live poll
request while providing the video stream. Id. (citing ¶¶ 45 and 49–50,
Sinha’s interactive director’s receipt of inputs to push interactive polls
associated with a live program being broadcast by the broadcasting system).
The Examiner relies upon the other cited references for the claimed
details of the live broadcasting and polling limitations. The Examiner relies
upon Dey for teaching or suggesting that a broadcaster client device could
provide live streaming video captured from a camera on the device itself,
wherein such video is received at a server device. Final Act. 5–6. The
Examiner relies upon Aldrey for generation, at a server device, poll data
structure to store poll information for a live poll. Id. at 6. The Examiner
relies upon Rouady for providing a poll creation interface for display on a
broadcaster device together with a video stream. Id. at 7. The Examiner
relies upon Zuckerberg for a poll creation interface comprising a question
input prompt, receiving from a broadcaster client device a question creation
input corresponding to the question input prompt, and based on receipt of the
question creation input, generating a live poll at the server device
corresponding to the video stream in accordance with the question input
prompt and the corresponding question creation input. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has disregarded the limitation in
claim 1 that a number of the recited limitations are performed “while
providing the video stream to the plurality of viewer client devices.” Appeal
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

6
Br. 11. Appellant alleges that Sinha does not teach or suggest generating a
poll from the same broadcaster client device that also provides a live video
stream to client devices. Id. at 12. Appellant further faults the teachings of
Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and Zuckerberg for lacking any description that their
functions are performed while providing a video stream to a plurality of
viewer client devices. Id. at 12–19. Appellant alleges that the Examiner has
improperly dissected the claims by ignoring this “while providing”
limitation when combining the teachings of Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and
Zuckerberg. Id. at 19–22.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The test for
obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). For claim 1, the Examiner has found Sinha to teach or
suggest a broadcaster client device broadcasting a live program and
receiving a live poll request while providing the video stream. Ans. 5. The
Examiner has combined teachings from Dey, Aldrey, Rouady, and
Zuckerberg to teach or suggest further refinements to Sinha’s broadcasting
and/or polling. We do not agree that the combination of references fails to
teach or suggest the claimed invention simply because not all references
teach or suggest performing actions while providing a video stream to a
plurality of client devices. We agree with the Examiner that Sinha teaches
or suggests performing polling functions while providing a video stream,
and that the other cited references provide further teachings as to the details
of the polling functions. Ans. 5–9. Considering the entirety of the teachings
of the applied references, as organized by the Examiner, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner errs in combining the individual teachings of
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

7
the references to teach or suggest the alleged invention of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2–7, 9, 10, 12, and 17–20,
rejected over the same combination of references. Consequently, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
II. Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
base combination applied to the rejection of claim 1, further in view of Kim.
Appellant provides no argument against claim 8 that is separate from the
arguments against claim 1. For the reasons expressed above in sustaining
the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 8.
III. Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
base combination applied to the rejection of claim 1, further in view of
Gresta and Morrison. Appellant provides no argument against claim 11 that
is separate from the arguments against claim 1. For the reasons expressed
above in sustaining the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim
11.
IV. Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
base combination applied to the rejection of claim 1, further in view of
Rowley. Appellant provides no argument against claim 11 that is separate
from the arguments against claim 1. For the reasons expressed above in
sustaining the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

8
V. Claims 14 and 16
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the base combination applied to the rejection of claim 1, further in view
of Kalmes. Appellant provides no argument against claim 14 that is separate
from the arguments against claim 1. For the reasons expressed above in
sustaining the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 14.
Appellant argues that the combination of references, and particularly
Kalmes, do not teach or suggest claim 16’s additional limitation of
“withholding participation in the live poll from the second plurality of
viewer client devices based on determining that the second plurality of
viewer client devices joined the video stream after the live poll was
initiated.” Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant argues that Kalmes teaches
excluding a viewer from a poll upon determining that a viewer joined the
video stream beyond a set period of time after a live poll was initiated, not,
as claimed, excluding a viewer from a poll upon determining that a viewer
joined the video stream after the live poll was initiated. Id. at 25. Appellant
argues that applying Kalmes would permit a viewer who joined the video
stream after the live poll was initiated, but within the set time period, to still
be presented with the poll. Id.
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s specific timing is not required or
recited by the claim. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that Kalmes, in view of
the other applied references, teaches that users joining the video stream
would not be provided the poll if they join after the set period of time
following the initiation of the live poll. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 16 sets forth “withholding
participation in the live poll . . . based on determining that [users] joined the
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

9
video stream after the live poll was initiated.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).
Appellant has not explained why this language is not met when, as in
Kalmes, participation is withheld from users joining at some particular time
after the live poll was initiated. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16.
VI. Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
base combination applied to the rejection of claim 1, further in view of
Douglis. Claim 15’s added limitations require providing live poll
indications to those viewers determined to be “quality audience member[s],”
but not to those viewers determined to be “casual audience member[s].”
Appellant argues that the combination of references, and particularly
Douglis, do not teach or suggest claim 15’s additional limitations because
Douglis provides messages to users based on whether the message would be
of interest to a user, which is fundamentally different than providing a live
poll indication to a quality audience member but not to a casual audience
member. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues that the terms “quality audience
member” and “casual audience member” are defined by the Specification at
paragraphs 88 through 89. Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that Douglis describes a determination of “trusted
users” based on past history, and transmitting message to trusted users but
not to other users. Ans. 11–12. The Examiner finds Douglis’ trusted users
correspond to the claimed quality audience members, because they are
determined by their attribute of a past history. Id.; Final Act. 37.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s
Specification describes a “quality audience member” as “a viewer . . . that
Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

10
has a relationship with the broadcaster.” Spec. ¶ 88. Appellant’s
Specification describes a “casual audience member” as “any viewer who is
not a quality audience member.” Id. ¶ 89. Appellant has not persuasively
explained why Douglis’ distinction of a trusted user from other users by the
user’s past history, such as through previous responses to polls from that
broadcaster (see, e.g., Douglis ¶¶ 76, 77, 103, 106), does not teach or
suggest the claimed distinction of quality audience members, having a
relationship with the broadcaster, from other audience members.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.

CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1–20.
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).

Appeal 2019-004300
Application 15/370,594

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9,
10, 12,
17–20
103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg
1–7, 9, 10,
12, 17–20

8 103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg,
Kim
8
11 103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg,
Gresta, Morrison
11
13 103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg,
Rowley
13
14, 16 103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg,
Kalmes
14, 16
15 103 Sinha, Dey, Aldrey,
Rouady, Zuckerberg,
Douglis
15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

AFFIRMED