Ex Parte Flinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13270049 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/270,049 10/10/2011
53928 7590 08/11/2016
MANYWORLDS, INC
IP DEPARTMENT
5476 BRIDLE CREEK LANE
BRENHAM, TX 77833
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Dennis Flinn
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.
Many-09A7 1091
EXAMINER
GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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
Ex parte STEVEN DENNIS FLINN and
NAOMI FELINA MONEYPENNY
Appeal2014-003953
Application 13/270,049 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 9-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed "invention relates to extending the business
process paradigm so as to make processes more explicitly adaptive over
time." (Spec. 1, 11. 8-9.)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ManyWorlds, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-003953
Application 13/270,049
Claim 9 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It is reproduced
below (emphasis added):
9. A computer-implemented system, comprising:
a recommendation-generating function executed on a
processor-based device that generates a first plurality of
recommended objects, wherein the generation of the first
plurality of recommended objects is in accordance with a first
inference of a preference that is based, at least in part, on a first
plurality of usage behaviors, and wherein the first plurality of
recommended objects are delivered to a first user arranged in a
temporal sequence;
a computer-implemented usage function that accesses a
second plurality of usage behaviors associated with the first user
interacting with the first plurality of recommended objects; and
the recommendation-generating function, wherein the
recommendation-generating function generates a second
plurality of recommended objects, wherein the generation of the
second plurality of recommended objects is in accordance with
fulfillment of a subscription to a second user, wherein the second
user is represented as an object, and wherein the generation of
the second plurality of recommended objects is further in
accordance with a second inference of a preference that is based,
at least in part, on the second plurality of usage behaviors, and
wherein the second plurality of recommended objects are
delivered to a user arranged in a temporal sequence.
REJECTIONS
Claims 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bharat (US 7,568,148 Bl, iss. July 28, 2009) and Carlson
(US 2005/0267973 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2005).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bharat, Carlson, and R. Cowie et al., Emotion Recognition
2
Appeal2014-003953
Application 13/270,049
in Human-Computer Interaction, IEEE Signal Processing Mag., Jan. 2001,
at 33-35, 58---66.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, we address Appellants' argument that the
disclosures in Bharat associated with Figure 9 are "different from the other
cited disclosures of Bharat" and, therefore, Appellants conclude, Bharat
should be divided into two parts, "Bharat!" and "Bharat2." (Appeal Br. 11.)
The Examiner disagrees and finds that "[t]here is no actual division in the
Bharat reference" and that "[t]hese portions of Bharat are all directed to the
same invention." (Answer 6.) We agree with the Examiner. Bharat states
that the figures in the patent, i.e., Figures 1-9, "illustrate one embodiment of
the invention and, together with the description, explain one embodiment of
the invention." (Bharat, col. 2, 11. 17-20.)
Appellants also argue that Bharat "does not teach the recursive
functionality of claim 9 of accessing usage behaviors of a user interacting
with a first plurality of recommended objects that is recommended in
accordance with a first inference of a preference." (Appeal Br. 13, emphasis
omitted.)
The Examiner finds that Bharat "disclos[ es] user interaction with the
documents, including judging quality and a number of hits or views of a
document." (Final Action 5, citing Bharat, col. 5, 11. 17-37 .) The Examiner
also finds that Bharat discloses "users judging quality." (Answer 6, citing
Bharat, col. 5, 11. 17-37 .)
Bharat relates to "[ m ]ethods and apparatus ... for scoring documents
in response, in part, to parameters related to the document, source, and/ or
3
Appeal2014-003953
Application 13/270,049
cluster score." (Bharat, Abstract.) In relevant part, Bharat discloses that
"documents are analyzed for overall quality," "the overall quality of the
documents may also be assessed by utilizing the number [of] hit[ s] or views
the documents received within an arbitrary time frame," and "the source is
scored based on multiple factors such as the number of documents
published, the originality of the documents, the freshness of the documents,
and the quality of the documents." (Bharat, col. 5, 11. 17-18, 24--26, 30-33.)
Claim 9 recites "generat[ing] a first plurality of recommended
objects" and "access[ing] a second plurality of usage behaviors associated
with the first user interacting with the first plurality of recommended
objects." In other words, the first user interacts with the recommended
objects and the second usage behaviors are associated with that interaction.
The portions of Bharat cited by the Examiner disclose that various methods
and individuals may contribute to the "score" for documents included in the
first and second plurality of recommended objects.
Even if we were to determine that users could interact with the first
plurality of recommended objects by interacting with the objects
individually before the grouping known as the "first plurality of
recommended objects" is generated, the Examiner does not indicate where
Bharat discloses that the second plurality of usage behaviors is associated
with the first user, rather than other users, interacting with the first plurality
of recommended objects. (See Claim 1.)
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 9 and in rejecting claims 10-17 which depend from claim 9.
4
Appeal2014-003953
Application 13/270,049
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 9--17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
5