Ex Parte Billsus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

12717082 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121717,082 03/03/2010 Daniel-Alexander Billsus
132862 7590 04/21/2016
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. I PayPal
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
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.
2043.700US 1 2034
EXAMINER
VU,THONGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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):
slw@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL-ALEXANDER BILLSUS,
WEI CHAI, SAM P. HAMILTON,
JONATHAN BLAKE HANDLER, and NIR YEFFET
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4--20. Claim 3 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants' invention relates to document processing and presentation
using retrieval path data. Spec. i-f 1. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads
as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing event data representative of a plurality of
requests made by a user to a network-based publication system
communicatively coupled to a client device of the user, the
plurality of requests including a request to retrieve a document
available from the network-based publication system;
filtering the plurality of requests included in the event
data based on a period of time, the filtered plurality of requests
each being made by the user during the period of time;
storing the event data in a database as event metadata of
the document, the storing of the event data being performed by
a module implemented using a processor of a machine; and
providing the document to the client device in response
to the request to retrieve the document.
2
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
The Examiner's Rejection1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by De Mes (US 2004/0267815 Al; Dec. 30,
2004 ). Final Act. 2-9.
Appellants' Contentions2
1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent
claims 1, 14, and 19 by finding De Mes discloses "event data representative
of a plurality of requests made by a user ... including a request to retrieve a
document." Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants argue De Mes provides
several examples of event metadata, but data that is representative of "a
request to retrieve a document" is absent from those examples, therefore the
metadata of De Mes is not the same as the claimed "event data." Id.
2. Appellants contend the Examiner erred by finding De Mes discloses
metadata that is stored in a database as "event metadata of the document,'' as
recited in claims 1, 14, and 19. Br. 8-9. Appellants contend De Mes'
metadata is extracted and stored in a database with reference to the original
location of the data source, but this is not storing "metadata of a document."
Id.
3. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1,
14, and 19 by finding De Mes discloses "filtering the plurality of requests
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed July 31, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed on May
9, 2014.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") dated Mar. 5,
2014.
3
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
included in the event data based on a period of time." Br. 10. Appellants
argue De Mes' personal browsing history application keeps recently
accessed data resources and recently visited sites, but De Mes does not
disclose such data is filtered "based on a period of time" during which the
user made the requests.3 Id.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments (Br. 7-11) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with
Appellants' above contentions 1-3. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-9) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 10) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1, 14, and 19, as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims
in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
As to Appellants' contention 1 that De Mes does not disclose event
data representative of a request to retrieve a document, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of" data
representative of a request to retrieve a document" that is consistent with
Appellants' disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's finding that De Mes'
3 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 4--13, 15-18,
and 20. Br. 10-11. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further.
4
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
metadata, which includes the URL and HTTP request of a webpage visited
by the user, represents a user's request to retrieve and view information from
that webpage (i.e., "retrieve a document"). Ans. 10 (citing De Mes i-fi-121,
32); see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding an
Examiner is to construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner).
Regarding Appellants' contention 2 that De Mes does not disclose
event metadata of a document, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
because claim 1 does not require the metadata to be stored in any particular
location other than "a database." The Examiner finds De Mes' browsing
history application extracts metadata from a data source (i.e., a website) and
stores it on a database, with reference to the data source's original location.
Ans. 10 (citing De Mes i1 32). The broadest reasonable interpretation of
"metadata of a document" consistent with Appellants' disclosure does not
preclude the document metadata from being stored in a database separate
from the document, as disclosed by De Mes. Thus, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
As to Appellants' contention 3 that De Mes does not disclose filtering
requests included in the event data based on a period of time, Appellants'
contention has not persuaded us of Examiner error because De Mes discloses
the personal browsing history metadata is kept for 365 days, and recently
visited sites are sorted and color-coded to show only the top several recently
visited sites. Final. Act. 3; Ans. 10 (citing De Mes i1 3 8 and Fig. 5). The
Examiner's finding regarding De Mes' time period for keeping data and
sorting of recently visited sites is consistent with Appellants' Specification
(Spec. i1 62), which describes "filtering" as selecting only requests made
during a period of time (e.g., De Mes' last 365 days) and selecting only a
5
Appeal2014-007993
Application 12/717,082
certain number of the most recent requests (e.g., De Mes' top several recent
sites). Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, and 19, over De Mes.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6