Ex Parte Doshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2016

13185747 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/185,747 07/19/2011
49845 7590 09/09/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
HemalDoshi
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.
2043.966US1 2937
EXAMINER
TO, BAOTRAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2016 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEMAL DOSHI,
NAUSHER AHMED CHOLA V ARAM, DEV AL DUDHIA,
OM PRAKASH KANNUSAMI, and
BALAKRISHNA SHANKA
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as eBay Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
Claimed Subject Matter
The disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to streamlining
a voting process provided by a web application. (Spec. i-f 11.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an intermediary provider computer system
executing a voting application, a request from a user to effectuate
a vote action in a web application, the web application executing
in the context of a web-based social networking application; and
in response to the request, at the intermediary provider
system:
obtaining credentials of the user by accessing the
credentials of the user stored by the web-based social
networking application,
providing the credentials of the user to the web
application, and
receiving, from the web application, a notification
of a successful vote by the user.
_,_Rejections
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Seyer et al.2 (Final Act. 4--7.)
Claims 2, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seyer and Keman.3 (Final Act. 7-9.)
2 US 2011/0225024 Al, published Sept. 15, 2011.
3 US 2011/0252325 Al, published Oct. 13, 2011.
2
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
ISSUE4
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' contentions is whether the
Examiner errs in finding Seyer discloses obtaining credentials of the user by
accessing the credentials of the user stored by the web-based social
networking application ("the credentials limitation"), as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 6-16; Reply Br. 2-11). We concur with Appellants'
argument (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7) that the Examiner errs in finding the
cited portions of Seyer disclose the credentials limitation.
The Examiner finds Seyer discloses obtaining credentials of the user
by receiving/retrieving a communication identifier (e.g., a mobile telephone
number, e-mail address, a user name/password, or other identifier or
combination). (Ans. 4 (citing Seyer i-fi-120, 22).) The Examiner also finds
the credentials are obtained by accessing the credentials of the user stored
by the web-based social networking application, as recited in the
independent claims, because, in Seyer, a verification mechanism is able to
verify that a user is in fact associated with a provided communication
identifier (Ans. 4 (citing Seyer i131 )) and Seyer' s register module 302
allows a user of user system 108 to register with the communication
system 104 through/via social networking system 106 (Ans. 4 (citing Seyer
4 Because the rejections of all claims on appeal rely on the Examiner's
finding that Seyer discloses the credentials limitation, this issue is
dispositive as to all claims. Accordingly, we need not reach additional
issues raised by Appellants' arguments as to these claims.
3
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
iii! 42--43)). According to the Examiner, Seyer's social networking
application 119 of social networking system 106 registers the user through
registration module 302, opens an account with communication system 104,
and stores a unique record (credentials) for each of the registered users in
user table 204 of the database 120. (Ans. 4 (citing Seyer if 44).) The
Examiner further finds:
[W]hen the intermediary provider system (the communication
system 104 of Figure 1) receives the credentials of user
(combination of communication identifiers (para 0046), the
intermediary provider system (the communication system 104 of
Figure 1) obtain[s] credentials of the user by accessing the
credentials of the user stored by the web-based social networking
application (retrieves the credentials of user in the table 204 of
the database 120 which stored by the social networking
application 119 of the social networking system 106 (para 003 5
and 0037) so that the verification mechanism of the
communication system 104 can verify that a user is in fact
associated with a provided communication identifier . . . (para
0049).
(Ans. 4--5.)
We have reviewed the portions of Seyer cited by the Examiner and we
agree with Appellants' argument that credentials of the user are obtained by
the user submitting a communication identifier to communication
system 104, rather than communication system 104 accessing a
communication identifier stored by a web-based social-networking
application. (App. Br. 12-13 (citing Seyer iii! 22, 31).) Even if verification
of credentials already received could be considered obtaining credentials, the
cited portions of Seyer do not describe that the communication identifier is
verified by accessing credentials stored by the social networking application.
(See Seyer if 49 (describing an example of providing a verification code to a
4
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
user using the phone number or email provided by the user and receiving the
verification code back from the user).) We also agree with Appellants
(Reply Br. 7) that database 120 is described as associated with vote
communication application 116, and is not described as a location where the
social networking application would store credentials. Finally, we agree
with Appellants that Seyer' s disclosure of a user registering with
communication system 104 "through, for example, the social networking
system 106" (Seyer i-f 42) is not sufficient to meet the credentials limitation.
The cited portions of Seyer do not state that the social networking
application registers the user with the voting application, and instead
consistently describe the registration as being done by the user and states
that the communication identifiers are stored in the tables maintained by
database 120 associated with the voting application. (See, e.g., Seyer i-fi-135,
37, 42, 44.) Thus, although the intermediary provider computer system
(Seyer's communication system 104) may obtain credentials of the user, the
credentials are not disclosed to be obtained in the manner recited in the
independent claims, i.e., by accessing the credentials of the user stored by
the web-based social networking application. 5
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Seyer. For the same
5 Because the independent claims are rejected under§ 102, the issue of
obviousness under§ 103(a) is not before us. Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
5
Appeal2014-009850
Application 13/185,747
reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-10
and 11-19.6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6 Although dependent claims 2, 10, and 12 are rejected under§ 103(a) as
obvious over Seyer and Kernan, the Examiner does not rely on Kernan for
the obtaining credentials limitation, and the cited portions do not remedy the
deficiencies noted with respect to the rejection of the independent claims.
6