Snap Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2020002088 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)

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.
15/853,619 12/22/2017 Maria Pavlovskaia 4218.039US3 1055
21186 7590 07/28/2021
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA PAVLOVSKAIA and EVAN SPIEGEL
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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 1–13 and 18–20. 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 Snap
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods that “relate to
automated local story generation, curation, and presentation.” Spec. 19.
Claims 1, 2, and 4, reproduced below, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a server system, a plurality of content
communications from a plurality of client devices, each content
communication comprising a video clip , a location and a time
associated with the video clip ;
processing, by the server system, each content
communication from the plurality of content communications to
determine a set of quality metrics for each video clip ; and
automatically generating, by the server system, at least a
first story, wherein the first story comprises a first plurality of
video clips from the plurality of content communications
associated with a first area, and wherein the first plurality of
video clips for the first story are selected based on the location
for each video clip and the set of quality metrics for each video
clip of the first plurality of video clips.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the first plurality
of video clips are further selected based on:
a content time period;
and
one or more content categories associated with each
video clip of the first plurality of video clips by a machine
vision analysis of each video clip.
4. The method of claim 3 further comprising:
analyzing a plurality of incoming content messages to
determine system trends associated with the first story; and
adjusting the visibility of the first story to a second
visibility area.
Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Papin US 2010/0100568 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Chang US 2014/0040712 A1 Feb. 6, 2014
Smith US 2014/0236673 A1 Aug. 21, 2014
Turner US 2014/0280501 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Shakib US 9,652,475 B2 May 16, 2017
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–13 and 18–20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No.
9,881,094 B2. Final Act. 4.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang. Final Act. 6–8.
Claims 2, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang and Shakib. Final Act. 8–13.
Claims 3–7, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chang, Shakib, and Turner.3 Final Act. 13–16.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Shakib, and Smith. Final Act. 16–17.
Claims 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Shakib, Smith, and Turner. Final Act. 17–18.

2 The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 18 (see Final Act. 4–5) has
been withdrawn. Ans. 19.
3 These claims depend from claims 2, 12, or 18, which were rejected over
the combination of Chang and Shakib. We consider the omission of the
Shakib reference from the statement of the rejection harmless. See Final
Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

4
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang, Shakib, and Papin. Final Act. 19.
OPINION
NON-STATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–13 and 18–20 on the grounds of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,881,094 B2. Final Act. 4. Appellant did not appeal the double
patenting rejection. See Appeal Br. 7–28. As a result, we summarily affirm
the Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1–13 and
18–20. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue –– or, more broadly, on a particular rejection –– the Board will not, as
a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
PRIOR-ART REJECTIONS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions concerning unpatentability under
§ 103. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and
arguments.
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Chang discloses the recited
steps of receiving a plurality of content communications, Final Act. 6 (citing
Chang ¶¶ 5, 15, 17, 33, 40, 41, 73), processing each content communication
to determine a set of metrics, Final Act. 6–7 (citing Chang ¶¶ 15, 17, 28, 39,
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

5
86), and generating a first story, Final Act. 7 (citing Chang ¶¶ 3, 11, 13, 15,
17, 28, 41). The Examiner specifically states:
As mentioned above, Chang discloses a story generation
system that creates a story and includes automation intelligence
with curation abilities for arranging images (still or video)
based on any number of different factors (quality metrics) such
as size, data/time, location, and content (paragraph [0028]).
Chang also discloses the arrangement may be based on the
particular characteristics of each media elements (paragraph
[0086]), and/or a story progression application may identify a
set of two or more predetermined sizes available for the image
(paragraph [0092]), and/or the story is created about an event
such as Olympics (paragraph [0013]). Thus, one of ordinary
skill in the art would acknowledge the teaching of Chang would
imply “automatically generating, by the server system, at least a
first story, wherein the first story comprises a first plurality of
video clips from the plurality of content communications
associated with a first area, and wherein the first plurality of
video clips for the first story are selected based on the location
for each video clip and the set of quality metrics for each video
clip of the first plurality of video clips”.
Final Act. 7–8 (emphases added).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in concluding that Chang
teaches or suggests the claimed invention because Chang is concerned with
arranging media content selected by end users such that “users provide
media elements (e.g.[,] content) to a system or select from available media
elements, and then the systems of Chang arrange the media elements.”
Appeal Br. 22 (citing Chang ¶ 3). Appellant also asserts that
In Chang, video clips or other elements are not “selected
based on the location for each video clip and the set of quality
metrics for each video clip” by a server system. Chang instead
describes that the selection is done by users, and Chang
describes arranging the elements selected by users in a logical
and visually appealing manner. This is different than the
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

6
recitations of the claims, where the generation of a story and the
associated selection of content for the story is automatically
performed by a server system.
Id.
The Examiner responds by further explaining that Chang’s disclosure
provides the elements of the disputed claim language including: a system
server which communicates with client systems and collects images to
collectively tell a story (¶¶ 14, 22), a variety of images (¶ 31), a story
generation system for creating a story and arranging images based on
different factors such as size and location (quality metrics) (¶ 15),
automatically creating a story progression or image arrangement and
spatially locating them with other story progressions (¶ 29), and the
processing components of the system for accessing media elements and
story generation (¶ 41). See Ans. 20–21. The Examiner further refers to
Chang’s disclosure of an automatic story generation system for arranging
images based on different factors and characteristics of the media elements
and available sizes, which results in creating a story about a certain event,
such as Olympics. Ans. 21 (citing Chang ¶¶ 28, 92, 113).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the cited
portions of Chang teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 and
specifically the recited step of
automatically generating, by the server system, at least a first
story, wherein the first story comprises a first plurality of video
clips from the plurality of content communications associated
with a first area, and wherein the first plurality of video clips
for the first story are selected based on the location for each
video clip and the set of quality metrics for each video clip of
the first plurality of video clips.
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

7
Contrary to Appellant’s argument that “arranging images based on
location or other such factors is different than the recitations of the claims”
see Reply Br. 2, Chang’s paragraph 15 describes “generating a story from a
collection of images and/or other media elements.” That is, Chang generates
a story based on a collection of media elements which are associated with a
specific area and comprise a set of characteristics (or quality metrics).
Chang ¶ 15. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us of
Examiner error in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 2, 12, and 18
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Chang with Shakib teaches or suggests the subject matter of claims 2, 12,
and 18 because Shakib does not teach the “automatically generating”
limitation and fails to cure the deficiencies of Chang. Appeal Br. 23. The
Examiner responds that Shakib was relied on as disclosing that selecting the
video clips is based on “one or more content categories associated with each
video clip of the first plurality of video clips by a machine vision analysis of
each video clip.” Ans. 23; see Shakib 3:9–13.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. In view of our analysis
of Chang with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
relying on Shakib for the additional limitations in claims 2, 12, and 18. We
therefore are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 2, 12, and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 3–7, 19, and 20
Appellant contends the combination of Chang with Turner does not
teach or suggest the recited limitation of “adjusting the visibility of the first
story to a second visibility area” recited in claim 4, and substantially
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

8
similarly required by claims 5–7 (reciting limitations related to a “visibility
area”). Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant, Turner describes a method
for distributing content to clients in different locations or geofencing, which
is not the same as the recited features. Id. at 24–25 (citing Turner ¶¶ 19–21).
The Examiner responds by iterating the disclosure of content
distribution among different groups of clients in Turner based on the types
of content and the location of the user’s device. Ans. 23–24 (citing Turner
¶ 18, 21). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and further observe that
Turner’s geo-fencing is based on how a specific content distribution would
be limited to geographical segments where the users are located. Turner ¶
21. Thus, the Examiner properly equates the recited “visibility area” with
the geographical segmentation in Turner which relates to the limited
visibility or availability of a specific story to the users within that particular
segment. Id. at ¶¶ 18–24.
Contrary to Appellant’s contention that “this basic use of geofencing
in Turner is different than the recitations of the dependent claims” and
“Turner does not include any recitation of ‘adjusting the visibility of the first
story to a second story area’ as recited by claim 4,” one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood Turner’s teachings as adjusting the visibility
area according to the type or trends identified with respect to a particular
content. See, e.g., Turner ¶ 20 (“Administrators of the Captive Reach
platform 110 can have the ability to predefine these demographic
requirements for segmentation when setting up a piece of content for
distribution.”). Regarding Appellant’s arguments for patentability of claims
5–7, we also agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Final
Act. 14–15; Ans. 25–26; Turner ¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 21, 29, 36, 55, 56, and 86.
Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

9
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us of Examiner
error in rejecting claims 3–7, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In view of our discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 over Chang, independent claim 18 over
Chang and Shakib, and dependent claims 3–7, 19, and 20 over Chang and
Turner. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the
remaining appealed claims which are not argued separately or with sufficient
specificity by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 23–28.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 18–
20
Non-statutory
Double Patenting
1–13, 18–20
1 103 Chang 1
2, 12, 18 Chang, Shakib 2, 12, 18
3–7, 19, 20 103 Chang, Shakib,
Turner
3–7, 19, 20
8 103 Chang, Shakib,
Smith
8
9–11 103 Chang, Shakib,
Smith, Turner
9–11
13 103 Chang, Shakib,
Papin
13
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 18–20

Appeal 2020-002088
Application 15/853,619

10
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