Sami Shalabi et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 202013190803 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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. 13/190,803 07/26/2011 Sami Shalabi 10029-02807 US 2869 26192 7590 05/22/2020 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BAGGOT, BREFFNI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMI SHALABI, JONATHAN TERLESKI, MUSSIE SHORE, and CASSANDRA DOLL Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 31, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 16, 2019), and Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed June 22, 2018). Appellant identifies Google Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a system and method for enabling users of different websites to participate in a global conversation” (Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: [(a)] embedding, by one or more processors, a gadget on a first website and a plurality of second websites by inserting code representing the gadget into the first website and the plurality of second websites, the plurality of second websites being selected based on a setting associated with the gadget, the setting including a whitelist of websites for which the gadget is authorized to be embedded; [(b)] responsive to embedding the gadget on the first website and the plurality of second websites, at a server, creating an index including a gadget identifier for the gadget and a website identifier for each of the first website and the plurality of second websites in which the gadget is embedded; [(c)] receiving content of a conversation that has been displayed on the first website from the gadget embedded on the first website, the content of the conversation including a website identifier of the first website, the gadget having the gadget identifier; [(d)] identifying, by the one or more processors, from the plurality of second websites, a second website on which the gadget is also embedded using the gadget identifier and the index; [(e)] determining, by the one or more processors, whether the second website has displayed the content of the conversation; Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 3 [(f)] responsive to receiving the content of the conversation from the gadget embedded on the first website and determining that the second website has not displayed the content of the conversation, sending the conversation from the first website to the second website by transmitting the content of the conversation displayed on the first website to the gadget embedded on the second website for display on the second website; [(g)] receiving, from the gadget embedded on the second website, a reply of the conversation by a first user visiting to the second website to the content of the conversation originally received from the gadget embedded on the first website; and [(h)] creating a global conversation from the content of the conversation and the reply, and continuing the global conversation at the first website for users visiting the first website, including the first user moving from visiting the second website to the first website, based on transmitting the reply of the conversation from the gadget embedded on the second website to the gadget embedded on the first website and displaying the global conversation on the first website and the second website. REJECTION2 Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2008/0148283 A1, pub. June 19, 2008) (“Allen ’283”), Allen et al. (US 2009/0094339 A1, pub. Apr. 9, 2009) (“Allen ’339”), and Wherry et al. (US 2008/0034040 A1, pub. Feb. 7, 2008) (“Wherry”). ANALYSIS Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 23– 25. We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims 2–22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 4 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the cited references discloses or suggests “determining . . . whether the second website has displayed the content of the conversation” and “responsive to receiving the content of the conversation from the gadget embedded on the first website and determining that the second website has not displayed the content of the conversation, sending the conversation from the first website to the second website,” i.e., limitations (e) and (f), as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 23– 25). Instead, according to Appellant, all of the cited references disclose “instant synchrony in content delivery among different group user interfaces, which is clearly different from the claimed method, in which conversation content orderly appears in different websites with a sequence” (id. at 23). Focusing specifically on Wherry, on which the Examiner relies (see Non-Final Act. 9 (acknowledging that neither Allen ’283 nor Allen ’339 explicitly discloses the argued limitations and citing paragraph 69 of Wherry to cure this deficiency)), Appellant observes that Wherry relates to a method and system for embedding group conversations, and discloses group chat interfaces 111, 121 (linked via a shared communication protocol to group chat server 160) that allow users to send or receive instant messages, receive response information, join a group chat, leave the group chat, or exchange other similar information with another user in real-time (Appeal Br. 24 (citing Wherry ¶ 28)). Appellant notes that Wherry specifically discloses that “[i]f a user types in a message on interface 121, it shows up on [interface] 121 as a message he is entering but appears as a message from this user to another user in interface 111,” i.e., that Wherry discloses that “the instant real-time communication allows the message to show up in both Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 5 user interfaces in Wherry” (id. (again referencing Wherry ¶ 28)). And Appellant maintains that Wherry emphasizes this same “synchrony in content delivery” in cited paragraph 69 (id. at 25). Appellant argues that because “the message shows up in both user interfaces in a conversation in Wherry, the cited portions of Wherry do not disclose or suggest ‘determining, by the one or more processors, whether the second website has displayed the content of the conversation,’” i.e., limitation (e), as recited in claim 1, and that “there is no intention for Wherry to send the message from the first user interface to the second user interface,” i.e., as called for in limitation (f), because “the message has already shown up in the second user interface, per the description in the cited portion of Wherry” (Appeal Br. 24–25). Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner, in the Answer, cites paragraph 70 of Wherry as disclosing “the orderly process (which [Appellant] says was not shown in Wherry ¶ 69)” (Ans. 4). The Examiner reasons that although paragraph 70 discusses “media,” not “conversation,” both are content, and “[f]or the one or more users in Wherry ¶ 70 [who have not seen some media], the playing of that content is no longer synchronized but delayed” (id.). Appellant does not provide any response in its Reply Brief to the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 70 of Wherry (see Reply Br. 1 (stating only that the arguments made in the Examiner’s Answer are “refuted by the Pre-Appeal Brief dated September 24, 2018 and the Appeal Brief dated January 31, 2019, whose arguments are incorporated by reference and are not repeated again here for the sake of brevity only”)). Nor does Appellant address paragraph 70 of Wherry in its Appeal Brief. Appeal 2019-005604 Application 13/190,803 6 On this record, Appellant has not persuasively shown error in the Examiner’s determination that Wherry discloses the argued limitations, i.e., limitations (e) and (f), as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1, and claims 2–22, which fall with claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–22 103(a) Allen ’283, Allen ’339, Wherry 1–22 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation