Ex Parte Nadiadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13733600 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017)

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.
13/733,600 01/03/2013 Yunas Nadiadi 0409-US-U2 3878
83579 7590 07/24/2017
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
AYAD, MARIA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patent, docketing @ leve!3. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNAS NADIADI, PAUL FARNSWORTH,
JEFFREY K. STOREY, AJIT K. RAO, ERIC D. GUNDERSEN,
ALLEN E. DIXON, SANJIV KUMAR, RENE GRIPPO, and
OMPRAKASH MISHRA1
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—26, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. On July 11, 2017, an oral hearing was held in this case. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Level 3 Communications, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants describe the disclosed and claimed invention as follows:
Implementations of the present disclosure involve a
system and/or method of creating a presentation. The system
and/or method is configured to take basic user input about a
customer and a subject and automatically generate a title slide
and select appropriate assets for inclusion in a presentation in
order to provide the user with an easy to use system for adding
content to the presentation. The system automatically populates
an asset board with presentation assets associated with the
customer and the subject selected. A user may then select from
the assets board, which presentation assets to include in the
presentation and in which order.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. A system for creating a presentation comprising:
a computing device including a processor coupled to a display
and at least one memory, the memory storing instructions for execution
on the processor, the instructions configured to cause the processor to:
generate a presentation board including a pinup board and an
asset browser, the pinup board including a plurality of asset locations
where one or more presentation assets may be assembled to define a
multimedia slideshow presentation; and
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Mar. 27, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 29, 2015 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Oct. 7, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed
Jan. 3, 2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
provide an asset browser comprising a graphical display of a
plurality of presentation assets that may be placed in the plurality of
asset locations, wherein the plurality of presentation assets that are
displayed in the asset browser are selected from a remote database of
presentation assets based on a user-selected product or service, and
where one or more of the plurality of presentation assets are loaded to
a cache memory of the computing device prior to presentation of the
multimedia slideshow presentation.
References and Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 2, and 19 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of
copending Application No. 13/733,628 (“the ’628 application”) in view of
Chaudhary et al. (US 2010/0114985 Al; published May 6, 2010)
(“Chaudhary”).
2. Claims 10 and 11 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the ’628
application in view of Chaudhary.
3. Claims 1—4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19—21, 24, and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bachman et al.
(US 2012/0054617 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012) (“Bachman”), Chaudhary,
and Worthington (US 2002/0055928 Al; published May 9, 2002).
4. Claims 5, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bachman in view of Chaudhary and Worthington,
as applied to claims 4, 13, and 21, respectively, and further in view of Kaila
et al. (US 2011/0125755 Al; published May 26, 2011 (“Kaila”).
5. Claims 6, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bachman in view of Chaudhary and Worthington,
3
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
as applied to claims 1,10, and 19, respectively, and further in view of Bebo
et al. (US 2005/0055337 Al; published Mar. 10, 2005) (“Bebo”).
6. Claims 9, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Being unpatentable over Bachman in view of Chaudhary and Worthington,
as applied to claims 1,10, and 19, respectively, and further in view of
Furlong et al. (US 2007/0055939 Al; published Mar. 8, 2007) (“Furlong”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner has 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—30) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—6), and we concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider
and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants do not argue the Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory
double patenting rejections of claims 1,2, 10, 11, and 19, as set forth in the
first and second rejections above. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims for provisional nonstatutory double
patenting.
Rejection of Claims 1—4, 7, 8, 10—13, 16,
17, 19—21, 24, and 25 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to show that the cited
combination of references teaches or suggests the limitation “wherein the
plurality of presentation assets that are displayed in the asset browser are
4
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
selected from a remote database of presentation assets based on a user-
selected product or service,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in
claims 10 and 19.3 Br. 6—12. In particular, Appellants argue Worthington
does not teach this limitation because, in paragraphs 32—35, which are cited
by the Examiner, “the partner selects the information that is to be sent, not
the user.” Br. 7—8. Appellants argue Figure 2 of Worthington “also does not
depict a user-selected product or service as claimed in claim 1.” Id. at 8.
Appellants further argue “[n]o valid rationale has been presented for
combining Bachman, Chaudhary, and Worthington.” Br. 12—14. Appellants
specifically argue the Examiner’s rationale “does not explain why a user
would want to place ads selected by advertisers into their presentations.” Id.
at 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. Regarding the “user-selected” issue, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that “Worthington’s definition of a partner is: any entity that provides
or specifies the data input into the architecture underlying the method and
apparatus described.” Ans. 4 (citing Worthington 132,11. 5—8). The
Examiner explains that Worthington “exemplifies this partner as a merchant
selling tools on a network, in which case that selected product dictates the
system to display a plurality of media assets for related tools and display
them in a strip as shown in figure 2.” Id. In other words, the merchant
selling tools on a network in Worthington is the “user” of Worthington’s
interactive visual display system. Thus, the Examiner also finds, and we
agree, Worthington teaches “a plurality of presentation assets that are
3 Because Appellants repeat the arguments for claim 1 with respect to this
limitation for claims 10 and 19, we choose claim 1 as representative.
5
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
selected based on a user-selected product or service are displayed, which
meets the identified claim limitation that only requires that ‘a displayed
plurality of presentation assets is selected based on a user-selected product
or service.’” We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that “[t]here is
nothing that precludes a person of ordinary skill in the art from interpreting
the user in the claim from being a partner according to the definition of
Worthington.” Id.
Regarding the “rationale to combine” issue, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds that
Bachman teaches generating a presentation board, including a pinup board
with a plurality of asset locations, and an asset browser comprising a
plurality of presentation assets that may be placed in the plurality of asset
locations. Ans. 5 (citing Bachman Figure 4, items 400, 402, 406; Tflf 41—43);
Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds Chaudhary teaches creating a slideshow
presentation and that the plurality of presentation assets are selected from a
remote database of presentation assets. Final Act. 11 (citing Chaudhary
H 24, 26). The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify the Bachman system with Chaudhary “to
create a slide presentation associated with a business and access a shared file
system to reuse shared content while also being able to modify current
downloaded versions of the slides stored locally, as proposed by Chaudhary
[e.g. [0005], lines 1-5; [0024], lines 1-6; and [0026], lines 8-10].” Final Act.
11—12. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds Worthington teaches “the
plurality of presentation assets that are displayed in the asset browser are
selected based on a user-selected product or service.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
6
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
been motivated to combine the teachings of Bachman and Worthington to
facilitate a customized presentation being created by a user, such as a “sales
associate,” providing advertising data or material “including similar and/or
related products or services to potential customers.” Ans. 5—6 (citing
Worthington || 13, 76). Thus, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient
articulated reasoning having rational underpinning such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of Bachman, Chaudhary, and Worthington so as to render obvious the
subject matter of claim 1. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). Appellants’ argument that the rationale for combining
Worthington “does not explain why a user would want to place ads selected
by advertisers into their presentation” (Br. 14) is not persuasive because it
ignores the teaching of Worthington, as discussed supra, that the “user” can
be a merchant that, for example, may sell tools and that specifies the
presentation data, including advertising and product types, attributes, and
key features. See Worthington 132.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding
Worthington teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 and (2)
concluding that the combination of Bachman, Chaudhary, and Worthington
renders the subject matter of claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 10 and 19, as well as dependent claims 2—4, 7, 8, 11—13,
16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 25, which are not separately argued.
Rejection of Claims 5, 14, and 22 under § 103(a)
Claims 5, 14, and 22 stand rejected as set forth in the fourth-stated
ground of rejection above. Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to
7
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to these claims,
which depend from claims 1,10, and 19, respectively, because the addition
of the Kaila reference does not cure the deficiencies noted regarding the
independent claims. Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive because, as
discussed supra, we find there are no deficiencies in the combination of
cited references with respect to the independent claims. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 14, and 22 under § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 6, 15, and 23 under § 103(a)
Claims 6, 15, and 23 stand rejected as set forth in the fifth-stated
ground of rejection above. Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to these claims,
which depend from claims 1,10, and 19, respectively, because the addition
of the Bebo reference does not cure the deficiencies noted regarding the
independent claims. Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive because, as
discussed supra, we find there are no deficiencies in the combination of
cited references with respect to the independent claims. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 15, and 22 under § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 9, 18, and 26 under § 103(a)
Claims 9, 18, and 26 stand rejected as set forth in the sixth-stated
ground of rejection above. Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to these claims,
which depend from claims 1,10, and 19, respectively, because the addition
of the Furlong reference does not cure the deficiencies noted regarding the
independent claims. Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive because, as
discussed supra, we find there are no deficiencies in the combination of
8
Appeal 2016-002127
Application 13/733,600
cited references with respect to the independent claims. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 18, and 26 under § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory double patenting
rejections of claims 1,2, 10, 11, and 19.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
9