Emre Mehmet. Kiciman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

12761666 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
12/761,666 04/16/2010 Emre Mehmet Kiciman 329068.01 1703
69316 7590 12/27/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
WONG, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMRE MEHMET KICIMAN, CHUN-KAI WANG,
SREEHARSHA KAMIREDDY, and SILVIU-PETRU CUCERZAN
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, 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 rejecting claims 7–17, 19, and 28–35. Claims 1–6, 18,
and 20–27 have been canceled. See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Apr. 16, 2010;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 8, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed Aug. 7, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates generally to “automatically providing
personalized data based on a social networking participant’s social
networking data” (Spec. ¶ 5), and more specifically to systems and methods
for personalizing a search engine home page for a social network participant
with a collage of images posted by other social media participants (friends),
and a hyperlink to information related to an image of the collage derived
from social media participant comments corresponding to the image. See
Spec. ¶ 5–6; Abstract. Claims 7, 19, and 29 are independent. Claim 7,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A method comprising computing device acts, the
computing device acts comprising:
in response to receipt of an indication that a social network
participant has requested a search engine home page:
identifying an image in social networking data of
the social network participant, the social networking data
uploaded to a social networking application, the image
uploaded to the social networking application by a contact
of the social network participant in the social networking
application;
identifying a named entity that corresponds to the
image based upon comments to the image in the social
networking data;
personalizing the search engine home page for the
social network participant, wherein personalizing the
search engine home page comprises constructing a collage
of images for inclusion on the search engine home page,

Action (“Final Act.”), mailed June 16, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
June 7, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

3
wherein the collage of images comprises a portion of the
image;
generating a hotspot for the search engine home
page at a location of the portion of the image in the collage,
wherein the hotspot, when activated, depicts a hyperlink
that, when selected, causes a search engine corresponding
to the search engine home page to execute a search for the
named entity.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Roseman et al.
(“Roseman”)
US 2009/0150388 A1 June 11, 2009
Macadaan et al.
(“Macadaan”)
US 2008/0209343 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Arnold US 2007/0233564 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Armstrong et al.
(“Armstrong”)
US 2007/0162432 A1 July 12, 2007
Szeto US 2007/0143264 A1 June 21, 2007
Goldberg et al.
(“Goldberg”)
US 2006/0143183 A1

June 29, 2006
Etkin US 2006/0048059 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 7–14, 16, 17, 19, and 28–35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Roseman, and

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections. Because the present application has an effective filing
date (Sept. 30, 2008) prior to the AIA’s effective date for applications
(March 16, 2013), this decision refers to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, i.e., § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

4
Macadaan (or alternately and in further view of Szeto, Goldberg, and Etkin).
See Final Act. 7–18.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Armstrong, Roseman, and Macadaan (or alternately and in
further view of Szeto, Goldberg, and Etkin) and further in view of Arnold.
See Final Act. 18–19.
OPINION
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claims 7, 19, and 29
The Examiner rejects independent claim 7 (as well as independent
claims 19 and 29, and dependent claims 8–14, 16, 17, 28, and 30–35) over
Armstrong, Roseman, and Macadaan (or alternately and in further view of
Szeto, Goldberg, and Etkin). See Final Act. 7–13; Ans. 14–24. Appellant
contends the cited prior art references do not teach the disputed limitations
of claim 7. See Appeal Br. 6–20; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant
contends, inter alia, that “Armstrong and Roseman (or Szeto and/or Etkin)”
(Appeal Br. 11) do not teach or suggest the disputed feature of “in response
to receipt of an indication that a social network participant has requested a
search engine home page: . . . identifying a named entity that corresponds to
the image based upon comments to the image in the social networking data”
(Appeal Br. 11–12 (emphasis omitted)).
Appellant contends the Examiner cites Armstrong as suggesting
“identifying a named entity that corresponds to the image” (Appeal Br. 11–
12 (emphasis omitted)) and “Roseman, Szeto, and/or Etkin” as suggesting
“based upon comments to the image in the social networking data” (Appeal
Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant also contends the names
“ChattingChuck” and “Star Wars” shown in Figure 2 of Armstrong are not
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

5
“named entities” corresponding to an image in the social networking data of
the social network participant (user). Specifically “ChattingChuck”
“instead, . . . is the name of the co-user whose feed is subscribed to by the
user” and “Star Wars” is text “in a journal entry . . . by ‘ChattingChuck.’”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further contends, with respect to “ChattingChuck”
and “Star Wars,” “[p]resenting text on a home page (without performing any
process as to the meaning of such text) . . . cannot fairly be characterized as
identifying a named entity, much less a named entity that corresponds to an
image.” Appeal Br. 13; see Appeal Br. 10–13.
Appellant additionally contends “Roseman describes recognizing
named entities using natural language processing” (Appeal Br. 13), but “any
photos or comments are displayed because they belong to the feed of
‘ChattingChuck’” (not the converse)—“the text ‘ChattingChuck’ is not
displayed based upon photos in photo albums or comments to journal or
blog entries. Modifying Armstrong with the teachings of Roseman does not
alter this function of Armstrong.” Appeal Br. 14.
With respect to the alternately cited Etkin reference, Appellant
contends “Etkin describes a dynamic relationship engine that . . . recognizes
relationships between the community users” (Appeal Br. 14), and that
“comments made by users . . . [are] considered when determining whether a
relationship link is to be established between users” (Appeal Br. 15). “From
the foregoing, then, . . . Etkin contemplates use of comments to images to
determine whether a relationship link should be established between two
users.” “[C]ombining . . . Armstrong with . . . Etkin would result in the
comments of Armstrong being reviewed by the dynamic relationship engine
of Etkin to ascertain whether a relationship link should be established
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

6
between ‘ChattingChuck’ and whoever posted the comments,” which is “not
germane to the display of the text ‘ChattingChuck’ on the page of
Armstrong.” Appeal Br. 15.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Armstrong and Roseman (or alternately Armstrong and Etkin) do not
describe identifying a named entity corresponding to an image based upon
comments to the image in the social networking data as recited in claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 10–16. The Examiner-cited portions of Armstrong describe
displaying entity names, but those names do not correspond to social media
images (“an image in social networking data”). See Armstrong ¶¶ 56–62.
The Examiner-cited portions of Roseman describe recognizing text
(identifying entities) and recommending content based on the recognized
information, but there is not any indication that the recommendations
include the recognized text (names) or that the recommendations (including
the recognized text) are displayed. See Roseman ¶¶ 23, 24, 26–29, 31, 34–
36. The alternately cited references (Szeto and Etkin) do not cure the
deficiencies of the Armstrong-Roseman combination. Cf. Final Act. 8–13;
Appeal Br. 6–16.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Armstrong and
Roseman with Macadaan (and/or Szeto and/or Etkin and/or Goldberg)
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 7. Independent claims 19 and 29 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 8–14, 16, 17, 28, and 30–35
depend on and stand with claims 7, 19, and 29, respectively.

Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

7
Obviousness Rejections of Claim 15
The Examiner rejects claim 15, which depends from claims 7, as
obvious in view of Armstrong, Roseman, Macadaan (and/or Szeto, and/or
Etkin, and/or Goldberg), and further in view of Arnold. See Final Act. 18–
19. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional
cited Arnold reference cures the deficiencies of Armstrong and Roseman
(and/or Szeto and/or Etkin) (supra). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 15 for the same reasons set forth
with respect to claim 7 (supra).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we determine that claims 7–17, 19,
and 28–35 are not obvious in view of the cited prior art.
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7–17,
19, and 28–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–17, 19, and
28–35.
Appeal 2018-008224
Application 12/761,666

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–14, 16,
17, 19, 28–
35
103 Armstrong, Roseman,
Macadaan, Szeto,
Goldberg, Etkin
7–14, 16,
17, 19, 28–
35
15 103 Armstrong, Roseman,
Macadaan, Szeto,
Goldberg, Etkin,
Arnold
15
Overall
Outcome

7–17, 19,
28–35

REVERSED