Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 601
`
`Exhibit H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 602
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 2 of 28 PagelD #: 602
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`12/877,034
`
`
`
`
`FILING DATE
`
`09/07/2010
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`Alex Fishman
`
`2050.171US1
`
`2435
`
`SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG& WOESSNER/OPEN TV
`SCE &WOEPeBXAMINERTT
`
`
`P.O. BOX 2938
`TRINH,TUNG THANH
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0938
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2427
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/03/2017
`
`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):
`uspto @slwip.com
`SLW @blackhillsip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 603
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 3 of 28 PagelD #: 603
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte ALEX FISHMANand CRX K. CHAI’
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL M. BARRY,and
`AARON W. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
`
`Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13—20, 22, and 23, which constitute all the
`
`claims pending in this application. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
`
`Wehave jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
`
`' Appellants identify the real party in interest as OpenTV,Inc.
`
`(App.Br. 2.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 604
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 4 of 28 PagelD #: 604
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`Introduction
`
`Appellants state their “application relates to the fields of media and
`
`entertainment and specifically to a smart playlist system.” (Spec. 1.)
`
`CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1.
`
`A computer-implemented method comprising:
`
`obtaining content utilization data from a plurality of
`client devices associated with a respective plurality of viewers,
`wherein the content utilization data for a viewer from the
`plurality of viewers is indicative of the viewer’s interest
`in
`respective content items, and wherein the plurality of viewers
`comprises other viewers who are not
`identified as social
`connectionsof the viewer;
`
`automatically generating, at a server computer system, a
`list of popular content items that are currently popular among
`the plurality of viewers based on the obtained content
`utilization data;
`
`from the plurality of viewers,
`for a target viewer
`customizing the list of popular content
`items to generate a
`customized playlist, the customizing based on a viewing history
`of the target viewer and on a viewing history of viewers who
`are identified as social connections of the target viewer; and
`
`communicating the customizedplaylist to a client device
`of the target viewer.
`
`(App.
`
`Br. 17 (Claims App’x).)
`
`References and Rejections
`
`Claims 1, 3—5, 7-11, 13—15, 17-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Conradt et al. (US 2009/0100469 A1;
`
`Apr. 16, 2009) (“Conradt”) and Dunk et al. (US 2011/0060649 Al; Mar. 10,
`
`2011) (“Dunk”). (Final Act. 4-9.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 605
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 5 of 28 PagelD #: 605
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Conradt, Dunk, and Loganet al. (US 2003/0093790 Al; May 15, 2003)
`
`(“Logan”). (Final Act. 10.)
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issues before us are whether the
`
`Examinererrs in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`(See
`
`App. Br. 9-16.)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Appellants argue the Examinererrs by finding Conradt and Dunk
`
`teach or suggest claim 1’s requirement of collecting “viewing history of
`
`viewers whoare identified as social connectionsof the target viewer.”
`
`(App. Br. 10-11.) Appellants contend that while Dunk states its “media
`
`service provider 16 may be configured to collect subscriber information (e.g.
`
`statistics about the viewing habits of each user or a group of users) for use in
`
`determining the relevance between particular media content and particular
`
`users” (¥ 39), “Dunk does not explicitly indicate that a group includes
`
`“viewers whoare identified as social connectionsof the target viewer,’ as
`
`recited.” (App. Br. 10.)
`
`Wefind this unpersuasive. “A reference must be considered for
`
`everything it teaches by way of technology andis not limited to the
`
`particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. On the issue
`
`of obviousness, the combined teachings of the prior art as a whole must be
`
`considered.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). Here, the Examiner’s rejection
`
`specifically identifies it is the combination of Conradt and Dunk that teach
`
`“the customizing based on a viewing history of the target viewer and on a
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 606
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 6 of 28 PagelD #: 606
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`viewing history of viewers who are identified as social connections of the
`
`target viewer.” (See Final Act 6 (citing Conradt Fig. 2, 50; Dunk Abstract,
`
`Figs. 13, J] 39, 47-48, 189-190, and 193).)
`
`The Examinerfinds, and weagree, that “Conradt teaches generating a
`
`media content recommendation for a user based on the compiled media
`
`content data for associated users in a social network” and “Dunk teaches
`
`providing media content based on relevance between content and [a] user in
`
`a social network.” (Ans. 2—3 (citing Conradt Fig. 2, Abstract,37, 46-50;
`
`Dunk Fig. 3, Abstract, § 20).) Dunk’s Figure 3 (described in {J 52-60)
`
`illustrates a relevance engine 50 coupled to a database 52 that contains
`
`metadata such as “preferences indicated by the users” and information to
`
`define “clusters or groups of users” (§ 58). Figure 3 further showsa social
`
`network integrator 54 coupled to database 52 for obtaining information such
`
`as user profiles, friends, expressed likes and dislikes, etc. from social
`
`networking applications 56 (Facebook, MySpace,etc.), which it can use “to
`
`generate additional user metadata” ({ 59). In view of these teachings, we
`
`find Appellants’ characterization of groups in Dunk as “having nothing to do
`
`with social connections” (App. Br. 11) unpersuasive. An ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have understood to the contrary in view of Figure 3 andits
`
`associated description.
`
`Appellants also argue the Examinererrs by finding Conradt and Dunk
`
`teach or suggest claim 1’s requirement of compiling data for a plurality of
`
`viewers “wherein the plurality of viewers comprises other viewers who are
`
`not identified as social connections of the viewer.” (App. Br. 11—12.)
`
`Appellants contend “Conradt appears to only take into consideration data
`
`regarding other viewers within a viewer’s social network.” (/d. at 11.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 607
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 7 of 28 PagelD #: 607
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`This is unpersuasive. The Examinerfinds, and we agree, that Conradt
`
`teaches collecting content utilization data from multiple device users, notall
`
`of which may be in a social network of a particular viewer. (Final Act. 4-5
`
`(citing Conradt Fig. 1, 9] 20, 33-34, and 49-50); Ans. 3-4 (additionally
`
`citing Conradt Fig. 2, {| 37, 41-43).) For example, Conradt states “[t]he
`
`service manager 132 can... form social networks based on the
`
`communications data collected from various client devices” (¥ 34). In an
`
`embodiment for doing so, “the users can be associated based on a threshold”
`
`(id.). Because some users may not reach the threshold, this teaches
`
`collecting the content utilization data from multiple users, with only a subset
`
`of them being in the same social network.” Accordingly, we agree that
`
`Conradt teaches claim 1’s “obtaining content utilization data from... a
`
`plurality of viewers .. . compris[ing] other viewers whoare not identified as
`
`social connections of the viewer,” as recited by claim 1.
`
`(See Ans. 3-4.)
`
`Appellants further argue the Examinererrs tn rejecting claim 1
`
`because:
`
`Neither Conradt, nor Dunk, nor any combination thereof
`discloses generating a list of popular contents items based on
`viewers that are not associated via a social network, and then
`customizing that list for a target viewer based on the viewing
`history of the target viewer and the viewing history of the
`viewers identified as social connections of the target viewer
`
`(App. Br. 12.)
`
`Wefind this argument unpersuasive because the claim only requires
`
`that the plurality of users for which utilization data is obtained “comprises”
`
`? Wealso note, as discussed below, the claim does not require that the data
`from the non-social network users be used in generating the list of popular
`content items.
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 608
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 8 of 28 PagelD #: 608
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`viewers whoare not identified as social connections of the viewer, not that it
`
`is limited to such users. We agree with the Examiner that Conradt generates
`
`a list of items (those popular in a social network), that are popular among a
`
`plurality of viewers (amonga plurality that includes both those in the social
`
`network and those who did not meet the threshold), where thelist is “based
`
`on”the social network data, which is part of the obtained contentutilization
`
`data.
`
`Appellants also argue in reply that the Examinererrs by finding there
`
`would have been motivation to combine Conradt and Dunk, contending that
`
`“stating that all references are in the samefield of endeavoris not a
`
`motivation to combine.” (Reply Br. 7.) We do not consider this argument,
`
`which Appellants could haveraised in the Appeal Brief, allowing the
`
`Examiner to respond. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). We note that although
`
`Appellants’ reply argument respondsto a statement in the Answer, the
`
`rejection includesa similar statement to explain the combination of Dunk
`
`with Conradt. (See Final Act. 6 (“However, in the samefield of endeavor,
`
`Dunk discloses... .”).)
`
`Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
`
`rejection of claims 5—11, 15—20, 22, and 23, for which Appellants present no
`
`substantive* arguments separate from claim 1.
`
`> Although Appellants do additionally assert that claims 5—11, 15—20, 22,
`and 23 “are allowable for the particular limitations recited therein” (App. Br.
`13), such a contention, without more, fails to constitute an argument on the
`merits. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(iv) (2012) (“A statement which merely
`points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argumentfor
`separate patentability of the claim.”).
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 609
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-8
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 9 of 28 PagelD #: 609
`
`Appeal 2016-001868
`Application 12/877,034
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and requires, inter alia, “wherein the
`
`customizing comprises selecting at least one of the popular content items for
`
`the customized playlist based on the viewing history of the viewers who are
`
`identified as social connectionsof the target viewer.” (App. Br. 17 (Claims
`
`App’x).)
`
`In arguing the Examiner errs, Appellants state “[t]he Final Office
`
`Action asserts that ‘Dunk discloses the relevance engine 50 determining
`
`relevance content for user based on ranking in social network (Fig. 3 p. 4
`
`para[0058]: p. 8 para [0126]-[0129]).” (App. Br. 13—14 (citing Final Act. 7
`
`(emphasis added by Appellants)).) Our review of the record does not find
`
`Appellant’s quoted assertion in the Final Rejection from which this appealis
`
`taken; instead, we find the rejection relies on the combination of Conradt
`
`and Dunk for teaching the requirements of claim 3.
`
`(See Final Act. 6—7
`
`(citing Conradt Fig. 2, 9§] 46-50; Dunk Figs. 1—3, 9] 8, 17, 39, 58-59, 126—
`
`27, and 132).)
`
`Because Appellants do not address the merits of the pending rejection
`
`based on the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Conradt and Dunk
`
`teach the added requirements of claim 3 (see App. Br. 13—14), we sustain its
`
`rejection. Wealso sustain the rejection of claim 13, which Appellants argue
`
`together with claim 3.
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 4 depends from claim | andrecites, inter alia, “generating a
`
`score for each item from the list of popular content items based on the
`
`viewing history of the target viewer and on the viewing history of the
`
`viewers whoare identified as social connectionsof the target viewer.”
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:
`610
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:
`611
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:
`612
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:
`613
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:
`614
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:
`615
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:
`616
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:
`617
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:
`618
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:
`619
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:
`620
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:
`621
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:
`622
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:
`623
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:
`624
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:
`625
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:
`626
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:
`627
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-8 Filed 02/18/25 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:
`628
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
