Yahoo!, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020006591 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 14/941,924 11/16/2015 Chien-Hung Zordius Chen Y11342US00 4036 180188 7590 02/02/2022 VERIZON - CLG LEGAL DEPT - PATENTS 1300 I STREET NW SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER HE, WEIMING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): VZPatent180188@verizon.com docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHIEN-HUNG ZORDIUS CHEN ________________ Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oath Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to displaying information on a user interface at different orientations for different users. Spec. ¶¶ 1-2. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method of orientation selection, comprising: capturing a first image of a face of a first user; providing a first registration interface associated with an option to register the first user using the first image, wherein the first registration interface comprises one or more fields defining an identity of the first user; receiving, via the first registration interface, an indication that the first user has a first unique name; registering the first user in association with the first image and the first unique name; capturing a second image of a second face of a second user; providing a second registration interface associated with an option to register the second user using the second image, wherein the second registration interface comprises one or more fields defining a second identity of the second user; receiving, via the second registration interface, an indication that the second user has a second unique name; registering the second user in association with the second image and the second unique name; identifying a plurality of users engaging with a client device by monitoring a range of a detection component of the client device, the identifying comprising: detecting the first user within the range of the detection component; and detecting the second user within the range of the detection component; Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 3 responsive to detecting the first user: identifying a position of the face of the first user relative to a screen of the client device; analyzing the face of the first user using facial recognition; identifying the identity of the first user, comprising the first unique name of the first user, based upon the analyzing the face of the first user; identifying a first blog of the first user based upon the identity of the first user; and obtaining first information for the first user from the first blog of the first user; responsive to detecting the second user: identifying a second position of the second face of the second user relative to the screen; analyzing the second face of the second user using facial recognition; identifying the second identity of the second user, comprising the second unique name of the second user, based upon the analyzing the second face of the second user, wherein the second identity of the second user is different than the identity of the first user; identifying a second blog of the second user based upon the second identity of the second user; and obtaining second information for the second user from the second blog of the second user; and concurrently displaying on the client device: an element of an application in a first orientation based upon the position of the face, wherein the element comprises the first information; and Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 4 a second element of the application in a second orientation based upon the second position of the second face, wherein the second element comprises the second information, wherein the first orientation is different than the second orientation. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-4 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2016/0274733 A1; Sept. 22, 2016) and Chan (US 2011/0064281 A1; Mar. 17, 2011). Final Act. 6-11. Claims 5, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and Hiltunen (US 2009/0322690 A1; Dec. 31, 2009). Final Act. 12-13. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and Shen (US 2015/0102995 A1; Apr. 16, 2015). Final Act. 13-14. Claims 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and Tabor (US 2013/0257291 A1; Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 15-17. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and Nishida (US 2017/0032349 A1; Feb. 2, 2017). Final Act. 17-19. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, Nishida, and Hiltunen. Final Act. 19. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Hasegawa and Chan teaches or suggests “identifying a first blog of the first user based upon the identity of the first user; and obtaining first information for the first user from the Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 5 first blog of the first user.” Final Act. 8-9. In particular, the Examiner finds Chan teaches a facial recognition algorithm is used to identify one or more persons in a captured image. Ans. 5 (citing Chan ¶ 20). The Examiner finds Chan teaches obtaining personal information corresponding to the identified persons in the image, where the personal information may comprise blogs of the persons. Id. (citing Chan ¶¶ 24, 31). The Examiner finds Chan teaches displaying the personal information on the screen and Hasegawa teaches concurrently displaying two or more contents at different orientations corresponding to different users. Id. (citing Chan ¶ 20; Hasegawa Figs. 19- 20). Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Chan does not teach or suggest these “identifying” and “obtaining” limitations. In particular, Appellant argues Chan teaches a facial image may be recognized and personal information may be obtained for the identified user, but the personal information is obtained from a local database and used to identify a destination to which the information may be shared, such as a user’s blog. Appeal Br. 33-34. In other words, Appellant argues Chan teaches obtaining a blog address from personal information stored in a local database, but does not teach obtaining personal information from a user’s blog. See id. Appellant has persuaded us of error. Chan teaches detecting facial images in pictures and matching the images against predefined facial images of users stored in a local or remote database. Chan ¶ 20. Chan teaches obtaining personal information about the recognized users from the same database. Id. Chan teaches this personal information may include various items, such as a user’s blogs. Id. ¶ 24. Chan teaches sharing the image by sending it to destinations identified from the personal information, such as Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 6 the user’s blogs. Id. We agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 10) that the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Chan teaches “obtaining first information for the first user from the first blog of the first user,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). That is, the Examiner has established that Chan teaches obtaining the identity of a user’s blog from previously-stored personal information, but the Examiner has not established obtaining personal information from the blog. For the above reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12, which recites commensurate subject matter for which the Examiner relies on the same findings. See Final Act. 11. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 11, 13, and 14 for the same reasons. Independent claim 19 stands rejected as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and Nishida. Final Act. 17-19. Independent claim 19 recites, in relevant part, “obtaining first information for the first user, from a first user profile of the first user and a first blog of the first user, based upon the role of the first user.” The Examiner relies on the same findings regarding Chan teaching obtaining information from a first blog of the first user as in the rejection of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 18; Ans. 6. The Examiner does not find Nishida teaches these limitations. See Final Act. 18; Ans. 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 19 for the same reasons. Claims 5-10, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable over Hasegawa, Chan, and one or more additional references. See Final Act. 12- 19. The Examiner does not find that any of the additionally cited references cure the above-identified deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain Appeal 2020-006591 Application 14/941,924 7 the obviousness rejections of claims 5-10, 15-18, and 20 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 11-14 103 Hasegawa, Chan 1-4, 11-14 5, 6, 10 103 Hasegawa, Chan, Hiltunen 5, 6, 10 7, 8, 15, 16 103 Hasegawa, Chan, Shen 7, 8, 15, 16 9, 17, 18 103 Hasegawa, Chan, Tabor 9, 17, 18 19 103 Hasegawa, Chan, Nishida 19 20 103 Hasegawa, Chan, Nishida, Hiltunen 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED