Ex Parte Amidon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201612769802 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121769,802 04/29/2010 Christopher M. Amidon 71739 7590 08/16/2016 Concert Technology Corporation 20 Depot Street Suite 2A Peterborough, NH 03458 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CT-SOC-009/US (P443) 8425 EXAMINER THATCHER, PAULA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CHRISTOPHERM. AMIDON, SCOTT CURTIS, and STEVEN L. PETERSEN Appeal2015-000688 Application 12/769,802 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12 through 21, and 23 through 28. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a social browsing system in which a user can enter a social crowd request, for one or more social locations and the system generates social crowd data is for the social locations based on user profiles of the users in the corresponding social crowds. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: Appeal2015-000688 Application 12/769,802 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a social crowd request from a user device of a requesting user having a user profile; identifying a social crowd for each social location of one or more social locations identified for the social crowd request, the social crowd comprising a plurality of users, each of the users having a respective user profile; for each social location of the one or more social locations, obtaining social crowd data for the social crowd for the social location by obtaining an aggregate profile for the social crowd based on the respective user profiles, and determining an affinity between the requesting user and the social crowd based on a comparison of the user profile of the requesting user and the aggregate profile of the social crowd; and returning the social crowd data, including the affinity between the requesting user and the social crowd, for the one or more social locations to the user device of the requesting user. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 10, 12 through 15, 20, 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Wie et al. (US 2009/10254843 Al, published Oct. 8, 2009) and Rhoads ("Avoiding Common Traps When Accessing RDBMS Data NESUG, 2008). Answer 3- 8. 1 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7, 9, 13, 18 through 20, 23, 24, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Britt et al. (US 2008/0261569 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008) and Rhoads. Answer 8-12. 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 24, 2014) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief, (filed October 13, 2014) ("Reply Br."), Final Office Action (mailed October 24, 2014) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 13, 2014) ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2015-000688 Application 12/769,802 The Examiner has rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Wie, Rhoads, and Rosen (US 2006/0085419 Al, published Apr. 20, 2006). Answer 12-14. ANALYSIS Rejections based upon Van Wieand Rhoads. Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 20, 27 and 28 is in error as the combination of the references do not teach obtaining social crowd data for the crowd at the social location by obtaining an aggregate profile for the social crowd as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 20, 27 and 28. Specifically, Appellants argue that Van Wie, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this limitation, teaches queries on the individual relationships with the requestor and not an aggregate profile for the social crowd. App. Br 14--15. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner construes the claim limitation "aggregate profile" as a "gathered or summarized collection of information." Answer 15. Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner finds that Van Wie teachings of querying a database of a user's contact history and interactions meets the claimed social crowd data. Answer 1 7. Appellants in the Reply Brief, assert the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad and when construed in light of the specification, the term aggregate profile for the social crowd includes "an aggregate list of interests from the user profiles of the user[ sic users] in the social crowd." Reply Br. 6. We concur with the Appellants, the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad as it does not include an aggregate list of interests from the user profiles of the users in the social crowd. The 3 Appeal2015-000688 Application 12/769,802 Examiner has not shown that Van \Vide, alone or in combination with Rhoads, teaches obtaining an aggregated profile from more than one user profile and as such we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection based upon the combination Van Wide and Rhodes. Similarly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection based upon the combination of Van Wide, Rhodes and Rosen. Rejections based upon Britt and Rhoads. Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 20, 27 and 28 is in error as the combination of Britt and Rhoads do not teach obtaining social crowd data for the crowd for the social location by obtaining an aggregate profile for the social crowd as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in in independent claims 18, 19, 20, 27 and 28. Appellants argue that Britt teaches aggregating messages from multiple service provider accounts but does not teach an aggregate profile from the social crowd and determining an affinity between the requesting user and the social crowd as claimed. App Br 19-20. The Examiner, applying the interpretation of the claim term "aggregate profile for the social crowd," discussed above, finds that Britt in Figure 33 teaches the claim limitation. Answer 21-22. As discussed above we consider the Examiner's claim interpretation to be overly broad, and do not find that the Examiner has shown that Britt's aggregating data from several of one user's accounts to meet the claimed aggregate profile for the social crowd. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections based upon Britt and Rhoads. 4 Appeal2015-000688 Application 12/769,802 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12 through 21, and 23 through 28 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation