Scratch-It, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020002930 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
13/785,612 03/05/2013 Robert Jenkin Haydock SCR17301 1419
145327 7590 11/19/2020
Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP
900 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 2300
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
KIM, PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2020 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):
patentdocket@allemanhall.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT JENKIN HAYDOCK

________________

Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 30‒48, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Zembula,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to interactive modular advertising.
Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 30 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
30. A computer-implemented method performed by an
end user computing device, the method comprising:
downloading a modular reveal-based digital media
content unit from a source computing device, the modular
reveal-based digital media content unit including a first graphic,
a plurality of predefined checkpoints having a two-dimensional
arrangement within the first graphic, and instructions
executable by the end user computing device;
executing the instructions at the end user computing
device;
responsive to executing the instructions, the end user
computing device:
requesting a second graphic from a remote
computing device contemporaneously with the download
of the modular reveal-based digital media content unit;
receiving the second graphic requested by the end
user computing device;
presenting the first graphic via a display device of
the end user computing device in which the plurality of
predefined checkpoints are not visible within the first
graphic presented via the display device;
detecting user interaction with at least a portion of
the first graphic;
responsive to detecting the user interaction with at
least the portion of the first graphic, revealing a portion
of the second graphic in place of the portion of the first
graphic presented via the display device, the second
graphic including a hidden message;
Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612

3
detecting a quantity of the plurality of predefined
checkpoints of the first graphic interacted with by the
user interaction;
responsive to detecting the user interaction with at
least the portion of the first graphic, automatically
providing a report to the source computing device or to
another computing device, the report indicating the
quantity of the plurality of predefined checkpoints
interacted with by the user interaction;
detecting whether the quantity of the plurality of
predefined checkpoints interacted with by the user
interaction is at least a threshold quantity of predefined
checkpoints within the first graphic; and
responsive to detecting the user interaction as
further including interaction with at least the threshold
quantity of predefined checkpoints within the first
graphic, revealing one or more user-operable buttons via
the display device that are operable by a user to present,
via the display device, a redemption code having a
redemption code type selected by the user from a
plurality of different redemption code types.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 30, 32‒38, and 40‒48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Blair (US 2010/0121719 A1; May 13, 2010), Burke
(US 8,667,425 B1; Mar. 4, 2014), Chin (US 2011/0187497 A1; Aug. 4,
2011), and Barker (US 2014/0006121 A1; Jan. 2, 2014). Final Act. 5‒24.
Claims 31 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Blair, Burke, Chin, Barker, and Zivkovic (US
2012/0054001 A1; Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 24‒25.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Blair, Burke, Chin, and
Barker teaches or suggests, “automatically providing a report to the source
Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612

4
computing device or to another computing device, the report indicating the
quantity of the plurality of predefined checkpoints interacted with by the
user interaction.” See Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds Chin
teaches a mobile device recognizing application of a gesture in a designated
region on a touchscreen. Ans. 4 (citing Chin ¶ 49). The Examiner finds Chin
teaches the gesture is transmitted or reported to a remote computer server.
Id. (citing Chin ¶ 52). The Examiner finds Chin teaches the mobile device
provides a report of “the number of points interacted with by the user.” Id.
(citing Chin ¶ 52).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Chin teaches sending the
gesture to a remote computer server to be compared to a previously recorded
gesture. See Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues Chin does not send a report of the
quantity of checkpoints interacted with by the user because the entire gesture
is sent for the remote computer server to make this determination itself. See
id.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds
Chin teaches the mobile device provides a report of “the number of points
interacted with by the user.” Ans. 4 (citing Chin ¶ 52). Paragraph 52 teaches
that the mobile device may recognize an applied gesture on the touch screen
of the device. Chin ¶ 52. The pattern may be used for unlocking the mobile
device or for allowing the mobile device to access data and information
resident on a remote computer server. Id. The Examiner has failed to
sufficiently explain how this teaching establishes that the mobile device
provides a report of the number of points interacted with by the user to the
remote computer server. Instead, Chin teaches the entire gesture is sent to
the remote computer server. See id. (“The user defined gesture 114 may be
Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612

5
transmitted to and stored in a remote computer server 402. In an exemplary
embodiment, a comparison may be made between the applied gesture 108
and the user-defined gesture 114 stored in the remote computer server
402.”). Chin also teaches the mobile device may itself recognize the applied
gesture. See, e.g., Chin ¶¶ 53‒56. However, the Examiner has not identified,
nor have we found, any teaching of the mobile device sending a report to the
remote computer server of the number of checkpoints interacted with by a
user.
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that
Blair, Burke, Chin, and Barker teaches or suggests “automatically providing
a report to the source computing device or to another computing device, the
report indicating the quantity of the plurality of predefined checkpoints
interacted with by the user interaction.”2 We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 30. We also do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 38 and 48, which
recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 32‒37 and 40‒47.
Claims 31 and 39 stand rejected as unpatentable over Blair, Burke,
Chin, Barker, and Zivkovic. See Final Act. 24‒25. The Examiner does not
find Zivkovic cures the deficiency identified above. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 31 and 39 for the same reasons.

2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2020-002930
Application 13/785,612

6
SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
30, 32‒38,
40‒48
103 Blair, Burke,
Chin, Barker
30, 32‒
38, 40‒48
31, 39 103 Blair, Burke,
Chin, Barker,
Zivkovic
31, 39
Overall
Outcome
30‒48

REVERSED