VITY Patent Holdco, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2022001445 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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. 15/363,984 11/29/2016 Lynne Haaland VITY02-01 4178 144987 7590 03/18/2022 Vity Patent Holdco, LLC 1635 Foxtrail Drive, Ste 321 c/o BlueIron, LLC Loveland, CO 80538 EXAMINER BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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): patents@blueironip.com russ.krajec@krajec.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LYNNE HAALAND ____________ Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, 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 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vity Patent Holdco, LLC. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a social media advertising platform (Spec., para. 4). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method performed by a computer system, said computer system comprising at least one computer processor, a display, and at least one input device, said method comprising: receiving authentication at least in part through said one input device from a first social media influencer; displaying on said display a performance dashboard to said first social media influencer; within said performance dashboard, displaying campaign information for a first advertising campaign to said first social media influencer, said campaign information comprising a campaign performance metric; within said performance dashboard, displaying performance metrics for said first social media influencer to said first social media influencer; within said performance dashboard, displaying said performance metrics for a plurality of social media influencers to said first social media influencer. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference Date Stuckey US 2009/0037257 A1 Feb. 5, 2009 Buban US 2015/0058077 A1 Feb. 26, 2015 Sims US 2016/0019579 A1 Jan. 21, 2016 Foster US 2016/0034680 A1 Feb. 4, 2016 Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 3 Dowlaty US 9,286,380 B2 Mar. 15, 2016 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, and Stuckey. 3. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, Stuckey, and Dowlaty. 4. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, Stuckey, and Buban. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 2-5, Ans. 3). Appellant has provided no arguments in response to this rejection (Appeal Br. 6). As no arguments have been presented in the Appeal Brief, this rejection is summarily affirmed.3 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 4 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Appellant first argues the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “displaying on said display a performance dashboard to said first social media influencer” (Appeal Br. 6, 7). The Appellant also argues that the rejection does not provide a sufficient rationale for the combination of references (id. at 9-11). In contrast, the Examiner argues that the cited claim limitation is disclosed by Stuckey at Figs. 21, 22, and 24 (Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner. Appellant has argued that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “displaying on said display a performance dashboard to said first social media influencer” (App. Br. 6, 17). However, Stuckey at Fig. 21 discloses a box on the screen that displays “YOUR INFLUENCER QUOTIENT IS 36” which would be the display of information to the social media influencer on a dashboard as claimed and this argument is not persuasive. With regards to the argument that the combination of references is improper, we are also not persuaded in this regard. Sims discloses a platform and method for coordination between an advertiser and influencer on social media to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign (Abstract, Figs. 7, 8). Sims discloses the generation of reports showing the effectiveness of each individual influencer as well as the campaign as a whole (para. 66). Foster discloses a computing system with a processor that authenticates a user via an input device (Fig. 1, paras. 23, 32). Stuckey, as rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the Examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer. See 37 CFR 41.39(a)(1). Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 5 described above, discloses displaying social media performance to an influencer on a dashboard (Fig. 21). In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) the Court stated that, when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Here, the modification of Sims’s advertising campaign dashboard that included social media influencer scores to use authentication as taught by Foster, and to display the scores as taught by Stuckey, for the advantage of having an advertising campaign that was more secure in having authenticated participants and also enabling participants to see their scores would have been an obvious, predictable combination of familiar elements for their known functions. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, and Stuckey. Appeal 2022-001445 Application 15/363,984 6 We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, Stuckey, and Dowlaty. We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims, Foster, Stuckey, and Buban. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-11 101 Eligibility 1-11 1-5, 8, 9 103 Sims, Foster, Stuckey 1-5, 8, 9 6, 7 103 Sims, Foster, Stuckey, Dowlaty 6, 7 10, 11 103 Sims, Foster, Stuckey, Buban 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1-11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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