Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019004521 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 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.
14/016,040 08/30/2013 Yohko A. F. Kelley 3016US01 5583
108982 7590 01/01/2021
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOHKO A. F. KELLEY and MATHIEU RENÉ BADIMON
___________

Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 11–21, all of the pending claims. Final
Act. 2.2 Claim 10 is canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Adobe Systems, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
January 18, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 21, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 26, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 22, 2019); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed August 30, 2013). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods and computer-readable media relate to
“separate[ing] an interesting moment or item out of a video and sav[ing]
and/or shar[ing] it while still maintaining a link to the video.” Spec.
¶ 1. “Video media item selections [are] described. In embodiments, a
computing device can display items associated with video media that is also
displayed for viewing, where the items have been designated for association
with the video media by a content producer of the video media.” Id. ¶ 4.
As noted above, claims 1–9 and 11–21 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and
18 are independent. Appeal Br. 37 (claim 1), 39–40 (claim 13), 41
(claim 18) (Claims App.). Claims 2–9, 11, and 12 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1; claims 14–17 and 21 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 13; and claims 19 and 20 depend directly from claim 18. Id. at
37–42.
Claims 1, 2, and 4, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving items associated with video media, each of the
items being identified with an item tag that indicates when a
respective item is relevant to a portion of the video media;
initiating displaying the video media and displaying the
items associated with the video media for viewing concurrently
on a display device, the items being displayed for selection
separately from an appearance of the items in the display of the
video media, and each item being displayed during the relevant
portion of the video media as designated by the associated item
tag, at least one of the items associated with an additional item
tag that indicates when to display the at least one item on the
display device as a selectable item relevant to the portion of the
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

3

video media, the selectable item being mentioned in the video
media but not appearing in the display of the video media;
receiving a user input as an item selection of one of the
separately displayed items while the video media is displayed for
viewing, said receiving the user input during the relevant portion
of the video media in which the selected item is being displayed;
and
initiating an item page being displayed for the selected
item, the item page including a display of at least an identifier of
the selected item, an image of the selected item, and a selectable
link to the video media.
Id. at 37 (emphasis added).
2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising
posting the item selection from the video media to a social media
site responsive to receiving a share input of the selected item
shared by the user, said posting the item selection from the video
media to the social media site posts the item selection without the
video media associated with the selected item.
Id. (emphasis added).
4. The method as recited in claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a notification indicative of a social media user
having further selected the item selection at the social media site;
and
communicating the notification to a data server associated
with a content producer of the video media.
Id. at 38 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Yamagishi US 2009/0064218 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Sept. 2, 2008

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

4

Soto US 2011/0004517 A1 Jan. 6, 2011 June 25, 2010
Hudson US 7,870,592 B2 Jan. 11, 2011 July 31, 2001
Allaire US 7,925,973 B2 Apr. 12, 2011 Aug. 12, 2005
Thompson US 2012/0084812 A1 Apr. 5, 2012 Oct. 4, 2011
Phillips US 2012/0114313 A1 May 10, 2012 Apr. 29, 2010
Incorvia US 2012/0167146 A1 June 28, 2012 May 12, 2011
Briggs US 8,312,486 B1 Nov. 13, 2012 Jan. 10, 2009
Glasgow US 2013/0117788 A1 May 9, 2013 Aug. 3, 2012
Avedissian US 2013/0283301 A1 Oct. 24, 2013 Mar. 14, 2013
Jo US 2014/0140680 A1 May 22, 2014 Apr. 22, 2013
Flynn US 2014/0149884 A1 May 29, 2014 Nov. 26, 2012
Good US 2014/0215529 A1 July 31, 2014 Jan. 24, 2014
The Examiner rejects:
1. claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow (Final Act. 4–9);
2. claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Good (id. at 9–11);
3. claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, Flynn, and
Yamagishi (id. at 11–13);
4. claims 6, 7, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Allaire (id.
at 13–22);
5. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Incorvia (id. at 22–
23);
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

5

6. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Phillips (id. at 23–
24);
7. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Soto (id. at 24);
8. claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Thompson (id. at 24–
25);
9. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and Soto (id. at
25–26);
10. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and Phillips (id. at
26–27);
11. claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, Good, Flynn, and
Yamagishi (id. at 27–30);
12. claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Good (id.
at 30–37);
13. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, and Thompson (id.
at 37–38);
14. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and Avedissian
(id. at 38).
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

6

We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 16, and 18; so do we. See Appeal Br. 13–
36; Ans. 36–42; Reply Br. 4–10. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own
and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the
rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow. Final Act. 4–
9. Appellant contests the rejection of claim 1 separately. Appeal Br. 13–18.
For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs, and
we sustain this rejection.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Briggs teaches or
suggests the majority of the recited limitations. Final Act. 4–5. In
particular, the Examiner finds Briggs teaches or suggests, “receiving items
associated with video media, each of the items being identified with an item
tag that indicates when a respective item is relevant to a portion of the video
media.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Briggs, 3:56–65, 4:21–57, 5:1–11, Figs. 2, 4, 6);
see Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

7

The Examiner finds, however,
Briggs fails to disclose the items being displayed for
selection separately from an appearance of the items in the
display of the video media; at least one of the items associated
with an additional item tag that indicates when to display the at
least one item on the display device as a selectable item relevant
to the portion of the video media, the selectable item being
mentioned in the video media but not appearing in the display of
the video media; receiving a user input as an item selection of
one of the separately displayed items; and initiating an item page
being displayed for the selected item, the item page including a
display of at least an identifier of the selected item, an image of
the selected item, and a selectable link to the video media.
Final Act.5–6 (quoting limitations of claim 1; italics added). The Examiner
finds Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow teach or suggest these limitations and a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine
the teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow to achieve the methods, as
recited in claim 1. Id. at 6–8.
In particular, the Examiner finds:
Glasgow discloses at least one of the items associated with
an additional item tag that indicates when to display the at least
one item on the display device as a selectable item relevant to the
portion of the video media (Figure 2 and paragraphs 26 and 27
illustrate the use of Application/Control product-related
metadata associated with the video content that is used to identify
particular locations within the video content for which to present
the products; paragraph 29 illustrates that the user may interact
with the item in order to access additional information), the
selectable item being mentioned in the video media but not
appearing in the display of the video media (Paragraphs 39 and
42 illustrate that the system may further provide a product
display portion 404 which may include information relating to
items discussed in the television program, such as displaying
information relating to clothing items being discussed by various
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

8

commentators in a television program about the fashion
industry).
Final Act. 7–8 (emphases added).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 for two
reasons. Appeal Br. 13–18; see Reply Br. 7–8. After considering those
reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
First, Appellant contends,
the combination of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow does not
teach or suggest an additional item tag that indicates when to
display an item on a display device as a selectable item, where
the item is displayed for selection separately from an appearance
of the item in a display of video media.
Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellant contends Glasgow fails to
teach or suggest “at least one of the items associated with an
additional item tag that indicates when to display the at least one item
on the display device.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added). Specifically,
Appellant contends:
The Office relies on Glasgow figure 2, as well as, ¶¶ [0026] and
[0027] for “product-related metadata associated with the video
content that is used to identify particular locations within the
video content for which to present the products” as a basis to
reject the recited features of “at least one of the items associated
with an additional item tag that indicates when to display the at
least one item on the display device as a selectable item relevant
to the portion of the video media” as recited in claim 1.
However, Appellant disagrees because, contrary to Glasgow,
claim 1 clearly recites “the items are displayed for selection
separately from an appearance of the items in the display of the
video media” where the recited additional item tag indicates
when to display an item separately from the video media on the
display device – not within the display of the video media as
described by Glasgow. Glasgow figure 2 merely indicates that
items are identified in product-related metadata (item 206),
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

9

where the product-related metadata is associated with television
program content (¶[0026]), and the product-related metadata
identifies particular locations at which products or services are
shown within the television program content (¶[0027]).
Appeal Br. 14–15. We disagree.
Initially, we note that the Examiner relies on “Jo[, not Glasgow, to]
disclose[] the items being displayed for selection separately from an
appearance of the items in the display of the video media; and receiving a
user input as an item selection of one of the separately displayed items,” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Jo ¶¶ 28, 43, Fig. 3E; italics added);
see Ans. 37. Appellant contends that this is a new ground of rejection; it is
not. See Reply Br. 5; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (“Any request to seek
review of the primary examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new
ground of rejection in an examiner's answer must be by way of a petition to
the Director under § 1.181 of this title filed within two months from the
entry of the examiner's answer and before the filing of any reply brief.”).
Further, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is based on the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow. Appellant cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references’ teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Moreover, Appellant may not challenge a rejection contending
that a reference does not teach or suggest a particular limitation where the
Examiner does not rely on that reference to teach or suggest that limitation.
As noted above, claim 1 recites “at least one of the items associated
with an additional item tag that indicates when to display the at least one
item on the display device as a selectable item relevant to the portion of the
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

10

video media.” Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Referring to
Figure 2, Glasgow discloses, “[m]ethod 200 also identifies product-related
metadata associated with the program content at 204. The product related
metadata includes information related to products or services shown or
described in the program content.” Glasgow ¶ 26. Further, Glasgow
discloses, “[i]n particular embodiments, the product-related metadata
identifies particular locations (e.g., temporal locations) at which the
products or services are shown within the program content. These location
identifiers allow one or more devices to match appropriate product
information with the current program content scene being displayed.” Id.
¶ 27 (emphasis added). We understand Glasgow’s disclosure of product-
related metadata identifying temporal locations at which the products or
services are shown within the program content to teach or suggest “an
additional item tag that indicates when to display the at least one item on the
display device as a selectable item relevant to the portion of the video
media,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7–8; Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added); see Ans. 37–38. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Glasgow teaches or suggests this limitation.
Second, Appellant contends neither paragraph 39 nor 42 of Glasgow
teaches or suggests “the selectable item being mentioned in the video media
but not appearing in the display of the video media.” Appeal Br. 16–17
(quoting Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.)). In particular, Appellant contends,
there is no indication in Glasgow ¶[0039] that the “clothing items
discussed in the television program” are not also displayed in the
television program. Further, Glasgow ¶[0039] is described in
context of figure 4, which clearly shows the clothing items
displayed in the television program. Notably, Glasgow ¶[0040]
states that as the images in the program display portion change,
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

11

the items and information shown in the product display port also
change.
Id. at 16. Further, Appellant contends,
Glasgow ¶[0042] merely states a display portion that “includes
images of various products displayed or discussed during a
program.” However, there is no indication in Glasgow ¶[0042]
that the “images of various products displayed or discussed
during a program” are not displayed in the program, and as noted
by the Office, “Glasgow may not explicitly state that the
highlighted items are not displayed in the video content.”
Further, Glasgow states the “images of the various products,”
which clearly indicates that the product images are displayed in
the program. The displayed product images in Glasgow may also
be discussed, but are at least displayed in the television program
for viewing, as described by Glasgow.
Id. at 17 (citing Final Act. 2). We disagree with Appellant.
Glasgow discloses:
In particular, FIG. 4 shows a picture of a bow tie 406 similar to
one worn by the actor in the television program, as well as a brief
description 408 of the bow tie. Additionally, product display
portion 404 may include information related to clothing items
discussed in the television program (e.g., a television program
about the fashion industry in which the commentators discuss
various clothing items or accessories).
Glasgow ¶ 39 (italics added). Thus, we understand Glasgow to disclose
showing either a product displayed in the video or, additionally, a product
discussed in the video. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 37. Further, referring to
Figure 5, Glasgow discloses, “[a] first display portion 502 includes images
of various products displayed or discussed during a program, such as dresses
and purses.” Glasgow ¶ 42 (italics added). In Figure 5, Glasgow depicts a
bow tie in product display portion 506, which is not displayed in the first
display portion 502. See Glasgow ¶ 44, Figs. 4, 5. Thus, we understand
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

12

Glasgow to disclose that discussed products need not be displayed in the
video. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 37. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Glasgow also teaches or suggests this limitation.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow,
and we sustain that rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5–9, 11, and 12, separately from
its challenge to their base claim, independent claim 1; and, therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of those claims. See Appeal Br. 15, 18.
B. Obviousness of Claims 13 and 18 Over Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
and Allaire or Good
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 13, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, and Allaire (Final Act. 13–22) and claims 18 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, and Good (id. at 30–37). Independent claims 13 and 18 recite
limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1, as discussed
above. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.) (Claim 13 recites “each of the
items being identified with an item tag that indicates when a respective item
is relevant to a portion of the video media” and “the selectable item being
mentioned in the video media but not appearing in the display of the video
media on the television display.”). Claim 18, however, includes an
additional disputed limitation, discussed below. For the reasons given
below, we sustain these rejections.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

13

1. Alleged Deficiencies in Glasgow’s Teachings
The Examiner finds Glasgow teaches or suggests the common
disputed limitations appearing in claims 1, 13 and 18 based on the same
disclosures and for the same reasons relied upon above with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 19–20 (claim 13), 34 (claim 18).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reliance on Glasgow to teach or
suggest the disputed limitations of claims 13 and 18 for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 24–28 (claim 13); 30–
34 (claim 18); see Reply Br. 8. We find Appellant’s challenges to the
rejections of claims 13 and 18, based on alleged deficiencies in Glasgow’s
teachings, to be equally unpersuasive with respect to these claims, as we
found the similar challenges unpersuasive with respect to claim 1. See supra
Section A. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Glasgow also teaches or
suggests these limitations of claims 13 and 18.
2. Good Teaches Additional Disputed Limitation of Claim 18
Claim 18 further recites the operation of
post[ing] the item selection to a social media site responsive to
receiving a share input of the selected item shared by a user, the
item selection posted without the video media associated with the
selected item, and the video media being selectable for viewing
from the item selection posted to the social media site.
Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.). Claims 1 and 13 do not recite this limitation.4

4 Claims 2 and 16, which depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively,
substantially recite this limitation. Appeal Br. 37 (claim 2), 40 (claim 16)
(Claims App.). As with claim 18, the Examiner finds Good teaches or
suggests the corresponding limitations in those claims. We discuss the
rejections of claims 2 and 16 separately below.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

14

The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo,
Hudson, and Glasgow do not teach or suggest this additional limitation.
Final Act. 35. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds:
Good discloses post[ing] the item selection to a social
media site responsive to receiving a share input of the selected
item shared by a user, the item selection posted without the video
media associated with the selected item (Figure 2 and
paragraphs 28 and 69 illustrate that the user may be provided
an option to item selections from within the media content and
information about the selected items via social network feeds, i.e.
the user is not required to post the item with the link and may just
post the item and its information via the social network feeds),
and the video media being selectable for viewing from the item
selection posted to the social media site (Figure 2 and paragraphs
28 and 69 illustrate how the user may be provided with a link to
the video via the social network feeds).
Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in this finding regarding Good’s
teachings. Appeal Br. 34–36. In particular, Appellant contends Good does
not teach or suggest, “the user is not required to post the item with the link.”
Id. at 35 (quoting Final Act. 35 (emphasis added)). According to Appellant,
Good “only mentions capability to share and post information about a
saleable item or the video itself via social media outlets, and that a user may
leave the video and proceed to checkout from a shopping cart system to
purchase items.” Id. (citing Good ¶ 28). Further, Appellant contends Good
“actually indicates the opposite of the recited features, in that a user can
‘share the selections and information about the selected items as well as
links to the video via social network feeds.’” Id. (quoting Good ¶ 69
(emphasis added)). After considering this contention, we are not persuaded
the Examiner errs.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

15

Referring to Figure 2, Good discloses, “[a]t 238, the video website
may provide capability to share and post information about the saleable
item or the video itself via social media outlets such as Facebook®,
Twitter®, Pinterest®, tumbler® or similar social media outlets.” Good ¶ 28
(emphases added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Good teaches that
the user may post information about the saleable item or information about
the video itself. Final Act. 35. Further, with respect to Figure 7, Good
explains, “[a]t 720, the user has an option to share the selections and
information about the selected items as well as links to the video via social
network feeds.” Good ¶ 69 (emphases added). Consequently, we
understand Good to teach or suggest that information about an item selection
may be posted to a social media site with or without the video media
associated with the selected item, but that the video media may be selectable
for viewing via links from the posted item selection. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Good teaches or suggests this limitation, as recited in
claim 18.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 13 and 18
as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
and Allaire or Good, and we sustain those rejections. Further, Appellant
does not challenge the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 14, 15,
17, and 21 separately from its challenge to their base claim, independent
claim 13; and, therefore, we also sustain the rejections of those claims. See
Appeal Br. 26, 28. Similarly, Appellant does not challenge the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 19 and 20 separately from its challenge to
their base claim, independent claim 18; and, therefore, we also sustain the
rejections of those claims. Id. at 32, 34, 36.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

16

C. Obviousness of Claim 2 Over Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Good
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, and Good. Final Act. 9–11. As in independent claim 18, claim 2
depends directly from claim 1 and recites the additional step of
posting the item selection from the video media to a social media
site responsive to receiving a share input of the selected item
shared by the user, said posting the item selection from the video
media to the social media site posts the item selection without
the video media associated with the selected item.
Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.); see supra note 4. In particular, the Examiner
finds Good teaches or suggests this limitation based on the same disclosures
and for the same reasons that the Examiner relies upon with respect to the
rejection of claim 18. Final Act. 9–10 (claim 2), 35 (claim 18). Appellant
challenges the Examiner’s reliance on Good to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of claim 2 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 18. Appeal Br. 19–20 (claim 2); 34–36 (claim 18). We find
Appellant’s challenges to the rejection of claim 2, based on alleged
deficiencies in Good’s teachings, to be unpersuasive, as we found the similar
challenges unpersuasive with respect to claim 18. See supra Section B.2.
(discussing claim 18). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Good teaches
or suggests this limitation, as recited in claim 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and
Good; and we sustain that rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge
the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3 separately from the challenge
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

17

to its base claim, independent claim 1, and claim 2; and, therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of claim 3.
D. Non-Obviousness of Claim 4 Over Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
Good, Flynn, and Yamagishi
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
Good, Flynn, and Yamagishi. Final Act. 11–13. Claim 4 depends from
claim 1, via intervening claim 3,5 and recites the additional steps of
“receiving a notification indicative of a social media user having further
selected the item selection at the social media site; and communicating the
notification to a data server associated with a content producer of the video
media.” Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that the
combination of Flynn and Yamagishi teaches or suggests the additional
recited steps and a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of these references with those of Briggs, Jo,
Hudson, Glasgow, and Good to achieve the methods, as recited in claim 4.
Final Act. 11–13.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in the findings regarding this
combination of teachings. Appeal Br. 21–23. For the reasons given below,
we agree with Appellant.
Initially, the Examiner finds:
Flynn discloses the method further comprising: receiving
a notification indicative of a social media user having further
selected the item selection at the social media site (Paragraph 54
illustrates whenever an event/item/object is selected by other
user within a social media system for which the user specifies to

5 See supra Sections A (discussing claim 1) and C (discussing claim 3).
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

18

receive notifications, the system may send a notification of the
event to the user).
Final Act. 12; see Flynn ¶ 54 (“Thereafter, whenever or as soon as an event
or information item of the type selected by the user occurs, the social-
networking system (e.g., through one of its servers) may send a notification
of the event to the user’s computing device, which then displays an
interactive element to the user.”). Appellant does not contest this finding.
Nevertheless, the Examiner further finds “Yamagishi discloses
communicating the notification to a data server associated with a content
producer of the video media (Figure 4 and paragraphs 83-89 illustrate that
the user device may create and send the selection request to a server).” Final
Act. 12. Specifically, Yamagishi discloses requesting programming from a
server. Yamagishi ¶¶ 83–89; see id. ¶¶ 4, 15.
Appellant contends:
Notably, Yamagishi ¶¶ [0083]–[0089] only describe an operation
to establish an [Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)] session
between an IPTV client terminal and an IPTV server in an IPTV
system, as also shown in Yamagishi figure 4. There is no
correlation between the cited sections of Yamagishi and the
recited features of “communicating the notification to a data
server associated with a content producer of the video media”
given the notification is “indicative of a social media user having
further selected the item selection at the social media site” as
recited in claim 4.
Appeal Br. 22 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds:
Yamagishi may not specifically disclose communicating a
notification to the data server associated with a content producer
of the video media given the notification is indicative of a social
media user having selected the item at the social media site.
However, Yamagishi teaches the general method of
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

19

communicating a notification to a provider server indicating a
user selection.
Ans. 39 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded, however, that
Yamagishi’s general teachings regarding communication with a server are
sufficient to teach or suggest the specific communication of “the notification
to a data server associated with a content producer of the video media,” as
recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.); see Spec. ¶ 4 (A “content
producer” designates items for association with the video media.). Thus, the
Examiner fails to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would have achieved the methods, as recited in claim 4, by
combining the teachings of these references in the manner proposed. Appeal
Br. 22. In the absence of sufficient evidence supporting the proposed
combination of the references’ teachings, we agree with Appellant that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not have had reason to
combine the teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, Flynn, and
Yamagishi in the claimed manner absent reliance on impermissible
hindsight. Id. at 23, Reply Br. 9.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 4 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, Flynn,
and Yamagishi; and we do not sustain that rejection.
E. Non-Obviousness of Claim 16 Over Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
Allaire, Good, Flynn, and Yamagishi
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
Allaire, Good, Flynn, and Yamagishi. Final Act. 27–30. Claim 16 depends
from independent claim 13 and includes substantially similar additional
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

20

limitations, as recited in claim 2 and claim 4.6 Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.);
see supra note 4. As with claim 4, the Examiner finds that Flynn and
Yamagishi teach or suggest the limitations of claim 16 corresponding to the
limitations recited in claim 4. Final Act. 29–30.
We find Appellant’s challenges to the rejection of claim 16, based on
alleged deficiencies in Yamagishi’s teachings, to be persuasive, as we found
similar challenges persuasive with respect to claim 4. See supra Section D.
Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 16 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow,
Allaire, Good, Flynn, and Yamagishi; and we do not sustain that rejection.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, and Glasgow;
b. claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and
Good;
c. claims 6, 7, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and
Allaire;
d. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Incorvia;

6 See supra Sections B.1. (discussing claim 13), C (discussing claim 2), and
D (discussing claim 4).

Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

21

e. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Phillips;
f. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Soto;
g. claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and Thompson;
h. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and Soto;
i. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and Phillips;
j. claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, and
Good;
k. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, and
Thompson; and
l. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, and
Avedissian.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting:
a. claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Good, Flynn, and
Yamagishi; and
b. claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Briggs, Jo, Hudson, Glasgow, Allaire, Good,
Flynn, and Yamagishi.
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

22

3. Thus, on this record, claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, and 17–21 are not
patentable; and claims 4 and 16 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, and
17–21 and reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4 and 16.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow
1, 5
2, 3 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Good
2, 3
4 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Good, Flynn,
Yamagishi
4
6, 7, 13, 17 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Allaire
6, 7, 13, 17
8 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Incorvia
8
9 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Phillips
9
11 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Soto
11
12 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Thompson
12
14 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Allaire, Soto
14
15 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Allaire,
Phillips
15
16 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Allaire, Good,
Flynn, Yamagishi
16
18, 20 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Good
18, 20
Appeal 2019-004521
Application 14/016,040

23

19 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Good,
Thompson
19
21 103 Briggs, Jo, Hudson,
Glasgow, Allaire,
Avedissian
21
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–9,
11–15, 17–
21
4, 16
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-IN-PART