Ex Parte Berner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201813553599 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/553,599 07/19/2012 Christopher Eric Shogo Berner 29989 7590 08/23/2018 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP 1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD FLOOR 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 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. 60375-0023 7386 EXAMINER MITIKU, BERHANU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): usdocket@h35g.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ERIC SHOGO BERNER, JEREMY RYAN SCHIFF, COREY LAYNE REESE, and PAUL KENNETH TWOHEY Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 Technology Center 2100 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVE M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-30, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a recommendation system that collects data to sift through and generate personalized recommendations and explains personalized recommendations for users, via user devices, in order to present recommendation explanation Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 factors used in providing informative and intuitive recommendations. See Spec. ,r 4. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A computer-implemented method for generating explanatory data from a personalized recommendations process for a primary user based at least on stored data about the primary user, the method comprising: determining the primary user for whom explanatory data is to be generated, the primary user being one of a plurality of users for which recommendations are considered; selecting, by a server computer instead of the primary user, a set of relevant users, wherein the set of relevant users comprises one or more users in the plurality of users that are deemed relevant to the primary user, wherein relevancy of a user in the set of relevant users to the primary user is based, at least in part, on similarities, according to stored user data, between a relevant user and the primary user; obtaining, at the server computer, restaurant data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the restaurant data is associated with a plurality of restaurants; storing the restaurant data at the server computer, wherein the restaurant data associated with the plurality of restaurants is stored in an entity database; selecting, at the server computer, one or more relevant restaurants from the plurality of restaurants that are determined to be relevant to the primary user based on data that is stored in the entity database and that is related to the one or more relevant restaurants; automatically determining, by the server computer instead of the primary user, one or more potential candidate factors based on at least the set of relevant users and the one or more relevant restaurants; automatically selecting, by the server computer instead of the primary user, a set of factors from the one or more potential candidate factors; 2 Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 automatically using, by the server computer instead of the primary user, the set of factors to recommend a particular restaurant of the one or more relevant restaurants; generating, by the server computer, the explanatory data based on the set of factors; causing, by the server computer, displaying of the explanatory data to the primary user, the explanatory data comprising an explanation that provides, to the primary user, one or more reasons for the server computer automatically recommending the particular restaurant, and the one or more reasons comprising an identification of a particular user in the set of relevant users and an evaluation of the particular restaurant by the particular user. References and Rejection Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chickering (US 2008/0097821 Al, published Apr. 24, 2008), Varshavsky (US 2011/0270774 Al, published Nov. 3, 2001), and McCarthy (WO 03/054760 A2, published July 3, 2003). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in determining the cited prior art portions collectively teach determining the primary user for whom explanatory data is to be generated, the primary user being one of a plurality of users for which recommendations are considered; wherein the set of relevant users comprises one or more users in the plurality of users that are deemed relevant to the primary user, wherein relevancy of a user in the set of relevant users to the primary user is based, at least in part, on 3 Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 similarities, according to stored user data, between a relevant user and the primary user; determining ... one or more potential candidate factors based on at least the set of relevant users and the one or more relevant restaurants; as recited in independent claim 1. 1 See App. Br. 4--11; Reply Br. 1---6. In particular, the Examiner erred because of the significant differences between the cited references and claim 1. Claim 1 requires "determining the primary user ... wherein relevancy of a user in the set of relevant users to the primary user is based, at least in part, on similarities ... between a relevant user and the primary user; ... determining ... one or more potential candidate factors based on at least the set of relevant users." In contrast, Varshavsky relates to "[p ]roviding a recommendation to a group of networked members . . . The recommendation is provided to the group collectively, and is based on trust relationships between the members of the network." Varshavsky Abstract. Chickering relates to recommendations utilizing meta-data based pair-wise lift predictions. See Chickering Abstract. McCarthy relates to "measurement of group consensus." McCarthy p. 1. The Examiner cites Varshavsky's paragraphs 53, 62, and 75, Chickering's paragraphs 63 and 64, and McCarthy's Figure 2, pages 3 and 4 for teaching the above limitations. See Non-Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 5---6. However, the Examiner has not shown the cited references, collectively or individually, teach "determining the primary user ... wherein relevancy of a user in the set of relevant users to the primary user is based, at least in part, 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 4 Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 on similarities ... between a relevant user and the primary user; ... determining ... one or more potential candidate factors based on at least the set of relevant users," as required by claim 1. See App. Br. 4--11; Reply Br. 1---6. Further, we have reviewed the cited prior art portions, and they do not describe determining the primary user for whom explanatory data is to be generated, the primary user being one of a plurality of users for which recommendations are considered; wherein the set of relevant users comprises one or more users in the plurality of users that are deemed relevant to the primary user, wherein relevancy of a user in the set of relevant users to the primary user is based, at least in part, on similarities, according to stored user data, between a relevant user and the primary user; determining ... one or more potential candidate factors based on at least the set of relevant users and the one or more relevant restaurants; as required by claim 1. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited prior art portions teach the disputed claim limitation. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 16 recites a claim limitation that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claim 16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16. 5 Appeal2018-002098 Application 13/553,599 We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 3-15 and 18-30, which depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-16, and 18- 30. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation