Facebook, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 20202019004300 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation