Google, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2020

14600420 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2020)

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.
14/600,420 01/20/2015 Adam Champy 0715150.306-US1 9514
104433 7590 07/22/2020
Byrne Poh LLP/Google LLC
11 Broadway Ste 760
New York, NY 10004
EXAMINER
FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2020 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):
info@byrnepoh.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM CHAMPY
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420
Technology Center 3600

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, 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 1–15, all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
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 Google LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “mechanisms . . . for
presenting media content that was advertised on a second screen device
using a primary screen device.” Spec. ¶ 41.2 Appellant adds,
these mechanisms can allow an advertiser to present an
advertisement to a user on a computing device (such as a
smartphone, a tablet computer, or a personal computer) that
facilitates presentation of content associated with the
advertisement (such as an episode of a television show or a
movie) to be presented on a larger and/or higher definition
display such as a high definition television, while allowing the
user to continue browsing unrelated content on the computing
device.
Id. ¶ 42.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
limitations at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for advertising media content to a user,
comprising:
receiving, using a hardware processor of a mobile
computing device, a first advertisement request from the mobile
computing device executing a browser application, wherein the
advertisement request is associated with a first web page;
detecting first information indicating that the mobile
computing device is connected to a first media presentation
device over a local area network, wherein the first media
presentation device is different than the mobile computing
device;

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
January 20, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed November
13, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Appeal Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); and (4) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 13, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

3
in response to the first advertisement request, selecting a
first advertisement that corresponds to a first media content
item based at least in part on the first information indicating
that the mobile computing device is connected to the first media
presentation device over the local area network, wherein the
first advertisement is presented on the mobile computing device
and wherein the first media content item corresponding to the
first advertisement is, upon interaction with the first
advertisement being presented on the mobile computing device,
presented on the first media presentation device;
causing the first advertisement to be presented by the
browser application on a display of the mobile computing
device, wherein the first advertisement causes the browser
application to execute a first set of instructions in response to
detecting user interaction with the first advertisement,
wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the
browser application on the mobile computing device, cause the
first media presentation device to request the first media
content item from a content server using an address associated
with the first media content item and begin presenting the first
media content item on a first display of the first media
presentation device;
receiving an indication that the first media content item
has been presented on the first display of the first media
presentation device;
receiving a second advertisement request from the
browser application, wherein the second advertisement request
is associated with a second web page;
detecting second information indicating that the mobile
computing device is no longer connected to the first media
presentation device over the local area network and is currently
connected to a second media presentation device over the local
area network, wherein the second media presentation device is
different than the first media presentation device;
in response to the second advertisement request, selecting
a second advertisement that corresponds to a second media
content item based at least in part on the second information
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

4
indicating that the mobile computing device is connected to the
second media presentation device over the local area network
and the indication that the first media content item has been
presented, wherein the second advertisement is presented on the
mobile computing device and wherein the second media content
item corresponding to the second advertisement is, upon
interaction with the second advertisement being presented on
the mobile computing device, presented on the second media
presentation device and wherein the first media content item
and the second media content item are related media content
items; and
causing the second advertisement to be presented by the
browser application on the display of the mobile computing
device, wherein the second advertisement causes the browser
application to execute a second set of instructions in response
to detecting interaction with the second advertisement,
wherein the second set of instructions, when executed by
the browser application on the mobile computing device, cause
the second media presentation device to request the second
media content item from the content server using an address
associated with the second media content item and begin
presenting the second media content item on a second display
of the second media presentation device.
Appeal Br. 21–23 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Rajkumar et al. (US
2013/0290711 A1, published Oct. 31, 2013) (“Rajkumar”) and Garmark
et al. (US 2014/0006947 A1, published Jan. 2, 2014) (“Garmark”). Final
Act. 10–30.

Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

5
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Rajkumar, Garmark, and Barlin
et al. (US 2010/0280903 A1, published Nov. 4, 2010) (“Barlin”). Final
Act. 31–33.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Rajkumar, Garmark, and
Simmons et al. (US 2012/0323674 A1, published Dec. 20, 2012)
(“Simmons”). Final Act. 33–34.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant’s First Argument
The Examiner relies on the combination of Rajkumar and Garmark to
teach or suggest,
causing the first advertisement to be presented by the
browser application on a display of the mobile computing device,
wherein the first advertisement causes the browser application to
execute a first set of instructions in response to detecting user
interaction with the first advertisement,
wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the
browser application on the mobile computing device, cause the
first media presentation device to request the first media content
item from a content server,
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

6
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 11–13, 17–19. Of particular relevance, the
Examiner finds that “Rajkumar does not expressly disclose . . . wherein the
first media content item corresponding to the first advertisement is, upon
interaction with the first advertisement being presented on the mobile
computing device, presented on the first media presentation device.” Id. at
17. The Examiner finds Garmark teaches “wherein the first media content
item corresponding to the first advertisement is, upon interaction with the
first advertisement being presented on the mobile computing device
(Receive a user input selecting the control element 510), presented on the
first media presentation device.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Garmark ¶ 126,
Figs. 1, 2A, 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner determines that sufficient
motivation existed to combine the teachings of the references. Final
Act. 20–21.
Appellant argues that,
Claim 1 requires a browser application on a mobile
computing device to execute a first set of instructions in response
to detecting interaction with an advertisement presented on the
mobile computing device, where the instructions cause a media
presentation device, different than the mobile computing device,
to request a media content item. However, nowhere does
Rajkumar disclose or suggest instructions executed by a first
device 106a in response to detecting user interaction with
content presented by first device 106a that cause a second
different device 106b to request a different content item from
a content server.
Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner responds by reiterating to Appellant that the rejection
relies on the combined teachings of the references, noting that:
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

7
Garmark teaches two devices (102-1 and 106-1) where
device 102-1 comprises the functionality to control the content
on device 106-1.
The Examiner has modified the presentation of content across
two devices of the Rajkumar reference with the teachings of
Garmark which teaches that the communication of controls
between a first and second device to receive media control
request based on the interaction and the network connection.
Ans. 4.
Although the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Rajkumar
and Garmark to teach or suggest the disputed limitation, Appellant’s
argument is based on Rajkumar alone. Appellant’s argument, therefore, is
unpersuasive because it is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. See
Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1336–37
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument directed at the wrong reference). In
response to the Examiner’s findings from Garmark, Appellant provides only
attorney argument by concluding that “Garmark fails to cure the deficiencies
of Rajkumar.” Appeal Br. 17. Attorney arguments and conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Still further, Appellant has
not presented a Reply Brief. Appellant, therefore, has not disputed the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages 3–5 of the
Answer, and so we find the argument unpersuasive for this reason as well.

Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

8
Appellant’s Second Argument
The Examiner relies on the combination of Rajkumar and Garmark to
teach or suggest
causing the second advertisement to be presented by the
browser application on the display of the mobile computing
device, wherein the second advertisement causes the browser
application to execute a second set of instructions in response to
detecting interaction with the second advertisement,
wherein the second set of instructions, when executed by
the browser application on the mobile computing device, cause
the second media presentation device to request the second
media content item from the content server using an address
associated with the second media content item and begin
presenting the second media content item on a second display of
the second media presentation device.
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 16–20. Of particular relevance, the
Examiner finds that “Rajkumar does not expressly disclose . . . wherein the
second media content item corresponding to the second advertisement is,
upon interaction with the second advertisement being presented on the
mobile computing device, presented on the second media presentation
device.” Id. at 17–18. The Examiner finds Garmark teaches “wherein the
second media content item corresponding to the second advertisement is,
upon interaction with the second advertisement being presented on the
mobile computing device (Receive a user input selecting the control element
510), presented on the second media presentation device.” Id. at 20 (citing
Garmark ¶ 126, Figs. 1, 2A, 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of the
references. Final Act. 20–21.

Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

9
Appellant argues that,
Additionally, claim 1 requires a “second advertisement
[that] is presented on the mobile computing device” and a
“second media content item corresponding to the second
advertisement [that] is, upon interaction with the second
advertisement being presented on the mobile computing device,
presented on the second media presentation device.” Claim 1
further requires “the browser application to execute a second set
of instructions in response to detecting interaction with the
second advertisement ... [that] cause[s] the second media
presentation device to request the second media content item
from the content server using an address associated with the
second media content item and begin presenting the second
media content item on a second display of the second media
presentation device.”
Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant concludes that “Rajkumar clearly fails to disclose
instructions that ‘when executed by [a] browser application on the mobile
computing device, cause [a] second media presentation device to request’ a
second media content item” and “Garmark fails to cure the deficiencies of
Rajkumar.” Appeal Br. 19.
The Examiner responds that:
Garmark teaches two devices (102-1 and 106-1) where
device 102-1 comprises the functionality to control the content
on device 106-1.
The Examiner has modified the presentation of content
across two devices of the Rajkumar reference with the teachings
of Garmark which teaches that the communication of controls
between a first and second device to receive media control
request based on the interaction and the network connection. . . .
. . . .
Further, the limitations that the appellant asserts as not being
taught are nothing more than duplication. Therefore, it is obvious
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

10
to apply the functionality on the device in Garmack [sic] (102-1)
to the mobile third different mobile device 106c in Rajkuymar
[sic] for the purpose of controlling the content that is presented
on the first media presentation device, disclosed by Rajkuymar
[sic] (106a) and it is obvious that these same steps can be
duplicated to control the content that is presented on the second
media presentation device, disclosed by Rajkuymar [sic] (106b).
Ans. 4, 6.
Appellant’s argument based on Rajkumar alone is not responsive to
the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Rajkumar and Garmark to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd., 357 F.3d at 1336–37. Moreover, Appellant
provides only attorney argument by concluding that “Garmark fails to cure
the deficiencies of Rajkumar.” Appeal Br. 19. Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470. Still further, Appellant
has not presented a Reply Brief. Therefore, Appellant has not disputed the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages 4–7 of the
Answer. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of
independent claim 9, and dependent claims 2–8, and 10–15, which Appellant
does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 19.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-006443
Application 14/600,420

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
8–13, 15
103 Rajkumar, Garmark 1, 2, 4, 5,
8–13, 15

3, 14 103 Rajkumar, Garmark,
Barlin
3, 14
6, 7 103 Rajkumar, Garmark,
Simmons
6, 7
Overall
Outcome
1–15
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