Ex Parte Anguiano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

13943316 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/943,316
113273 7590
Bejin Bieneman PLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
07/16/2013
07/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Anguiano
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P2013-04-03(01258-0003) 7351
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON ANGUIANO
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 9, 10, and 13-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 21, and 22 were
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is EchoStar Technologies
L.L.C. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's described and claimed invention relates generally to
gathering and storing data associated with media content. See Spec. ,r 19. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized):
1. A system, comprising a computer server that includes a
processor and a memory, wherein the server is configured to:
receive, from a first remote site that includes a media
device to which an item of media content is streamed, a first set
of data including an identifier for the item of media content, a
tag generated from input by a first user that describes the item
of media content, and an identifier of the first user;
receive, from a second remote site, a second set of data
concerning the item of media content;
after the tag generated from input by the first user has
been inputted and then received by the server, use the first set of
data, including the tag, and the second set of data, to assign the
item of media content to a group;
determine, according to at least data relating to a plurality
of users and the tag generated from input by the first user, at
least one second user to be associated with the group; and
provide to one of the second remote site and a third
remote site a graphical user interface that displays the item of
media content according to its assigned group and then, upon
receiving user input selecting the item of streaming media
content in response to the display, stream the item of media
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed December 5, 2016
("Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 1, 2017 ("App. Br.") and
Reply Brief filed April 13, 2018 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed February 23, 2018, and the original Specification filed July 16, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316
content to the one of the second remote site and the third remote
site.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-6 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Garcia-Martinez et al. (US 2014/0025735 Al; published
Jan. 23, 2014) ("Garcia"), in view ofKnysz et al. (US 2013/0018960 Al;
published Jan. 17, 2013) ("Knysz"), and further in view of Y erli
(US 2013/0212115 Al; published Aug. 15, 2013) ("Yerli").
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Garcia, in view of Knysz.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 6-10) and the Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 2--4), and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless otherwise
noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
17), and in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-22), and we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
Appellant argues the proposed combination of references is improper
because: (a) either of the secondary references, Knysz and Y erli, would
change the principle of operation of Garcia, the primary reference; and (b)
modifying Garcia with at least Knysz would render Garcia unfit for its
intended purpose. See App. Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant argues
3
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316
Garcia and Knysz each consist of fundamentally different principles of
operation; Garcia depends on entity-defined tags, whereas Knysz relies on
user-defined tags. See App. Br. 8-9. As argued by Appellant, if Garcia
were modified to include the user-defined tags of Knysz, as proposed by the
Examiner, such a modification would have fundamentally altered Garcia's
principle of operation, which is to have a content-providing entity define
content tags. See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant further
argues Y erli also relies on either user-defined tags or automatically-
generated tags, which also clearly runs counter to Garcia's principle of
operation for reasons previously argued regarding Knysz. See App. Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues modifying Garcia with Knysz
would also render Garcia unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because
Knysz allows a user to define tags, which would destroy Garcia's purpose of
allowing content-providing entities to control brand information. See App.
Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Garcia discloses a social
networking system configured to provide content from a brand page to a
user, where the system generates a tag, associates the tag with content posted
on the brand page, presents the content to the user, receives a description of
an interaction between the user and the content, and groups the user with
other users that have interacted with content associated with the same tag.
See Garcia ,r,r 41--44. The operation of the system does not change whether
the tags are generated by a content-providing entity, a user, or another party.
Thus, Appellant has not persuasively established that the Examiner's
combination of Garcia with either Knysz or Y erli changes any principle of
operation of Garcia.
4
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316
Further, while Garcia describes that it is beneficial for a content-
providing entity to define the tags, so that the entity can define the context
that the tags are used in (see Garcia ,r 6), Garcia discloses that, in certain
embodiments, the tags are not defined by the entity, but instead are selected
from a group of predefined tags. See Garcia ,r 41. Thus, Garcia does not
require that a content-providing entity exclusively defines the tags. Even
further, Garcia further discloses that an overall purpose of the system is not
merely to have content-providing entities define tags, but to define a group
of users having interacted with content associated with the tag to tailor
additional content to different groups of users. See Garcia ,r,r 5---6. While
the Examiner's combination of Garcia with Knysz might result in the loss of
the benefit of having the entity define the context of the tag, the combination
may also result in the added benefit of a more relevant grouping of users
interacting with content associated with the tag, based on the fact that the
users themselves are defining the context of the tag. See Winner Int 'l
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact
that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however,
should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference
with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained,
should be weighed against one another."). Thus, Appellant has not
persuasively established that the Examiner's combination of Garcia with
Knysz renders Garcia unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and
15 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2---6, 10, 13, 14, and 16-20, which depend from one of
claims 1, 9, and 15, and which are not argued separately.
5
Appeal2018-005055
Application 13/943,316
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 13-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6