UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2020006336 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/282,785 05/20/2014 Paul D. Arling 81230.721US12 9661 34018 7590 03/02/2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER FOXX, CHICO A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): chiipmail@gtlaw.com clairt@gtlaw.com jarosikg@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING, PATRICK H. HAYES, and ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI ________________ Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, LARRY J. HUME, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 and 12-16. Claims 2-11 and 17-22 are canceled. Final Act. 2. During prosecution of the application this appeal relates to, a previous rejection was appealed (Appeal Br. 2) and a decision issued (Appeal No. 2018-007916, decided July 1, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “displaying advertising content” using a “first app installed on a first device . . . to retrieve . . . advertising content and to then provide the advertising content to a second app installed on a second device” that “cause[s] the advertising content to be displayed as an overlay in a display associated with the second device.” Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Gardner US 2008/0319852 A1 Dec. 25, 2008 Drayson US 2013/0276010 A1 Oct. 17, 2013 Hu US 2013/0304817 A1 Nov. 14, 2013 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 12-16 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 12-16 103(a) Gardner, Hu, Drayson Final Act. 2-6 ANALYSIS Claim 1, which is representative with respect to claims 1 and 12-16, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A method for displaying advertising content, comprising: monitoring by a network server device a media streaming device to obtain information related to a media content that the media streaming device is causing to be streamed to a device for display on a display associated with the device; Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 3 receiving by a first app installed on the media streaming device from the network server device advertising content related to the media content that the media streaming device is causing to be streamed to the device; and [1] providing by the first app the advertising content to a second app installed on the device whereby the advertising content is provided to the second app installed on the device independent of the media content the media streaming device is causing to be streamed to the device whereupon the second app installed on the device will function to display the advertising content as an overlay to the media content in the display associated with the device. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gardner’s teaching of an advertisement overlay-either coordinated with or not coordinated with video commercial content-that allows for user input with the overlay, combined with Hu’s use of an overlay module to generate a content overlay over display content, teaches or suggests recitation [1]. Final Act. 3-4, 6-7 (citing Gardner ¶¶ 26, 39, Figs. 1-3; Hu ¶¶ 161-64, 168, Figs. 2-4, 7); Ans. 4-5 (further citing Hu ¶¶ 37, 116, 167). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Hu’s overlay module 722 is not a component part of Hu’s display device 204. Appeal Br. 5. Rather, Appellant argues, Hu teaches that content module 716, which includes overlay module 722, “functions to generate the display content 202 to be distributed to the portable device 206.” Id.; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant emphasizes that Hu’s “display module 728 displays the display content 202, including the content overlay 302, on the portable device 206 . . . after such content is received from the distribution module 726.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Hu ¶ 174, Fig. 7). Thus, Appellant contends, the combination of Gardner and Hu fails to teach or suggests the limitation “whereby the advertising Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 4 content is provided to the second app installed on the [media streaming] device independent of the media content the media streaming device is causing to be streamed to the device” (emphasis added) of recitation [1]. In response, the Examiner notes that Hu illustrates that “content delivery system 100 can be installed in the third device 108 . . . to control the corresponding components (e.g., the overlay module 722) to display overlaid advertisement content.” Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that “Hu discloses and suggests that the third device 108 controlling the functionality of the components that display the overlaid content (i.e., overlay module 722) can be included in the public device 204.” Id. at 4-5 (citing Hu ¶ 37). Appellant argues, however, that Hu nonetheless “discloses - when considered in its entirety as required - that the overlay device 722, which is included in the . . . content delivery system, only functions to add [a] content overlay to the display content that is to be provided to a distribution module for distribution, whether locally or remotely, to a display module.” Reply Br. 3-4. Thus, Appellant contends that even if the combination of Gardner and Hu teaches or suggests advertising content being provided to a second app installed on the media streaming device (e.g., overlay module 722 installed on third device 108), the combination fails to teach or suggest “whereupon the second app installed on the device will function to display the advertising content as an overlay to the media content in the display associated with the device.” Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner’s findings with respect to Hu teaching placement of overlay module 722 (i.e., a second app) on device 108 (i.e., a media streaming device) are supported by the cited teachings of Hu. See, e.g., Hu ¶¶ 37, 116, Figs. 1, 7. Moreover, Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 5 Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the claimed second app functioning “to display the advertising content as an overlay to the media content in the display associated with the device” from locally distributing overlay content from an overlay module to a display module. The claim recitations, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, do not preclude the second app from using a display module or from combining the media content and advertising content (e.g., an overlay) before distributing the content for display. See Spec. 18:13-20:22 (cited in Appeal Br. 2-3). Moreover, Hu teaches that distribution module 726 and display module 728 can be implemented as hardware accelerators. Hu ¶ 199. Thus, Hu suggests that the distribution and display modules are part of the display itself, and, therefore, delivery of content such as the content generated by overlay module 722 to these modules teaches or suggests that such delivery functions to display the content. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Gardner and Hu teaches or suggests the disputed recitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 12-16, which Appellant does not argue separately. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 12-16 103(a) Gardner, Hu, Drayson 1, 12-16 Appeal 2020-006336 Application 14/282,785 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED