Ex Parte Flinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

13337500 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/337,500 12/27/2011
53928 7590 02/26/2016
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-09A7B 9190
EXAMINER
RINES, ROBERT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337 ,500 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ManyWorlds, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to extending the business
process paradigm so as to make processes more explicitly adaptive over
time. More specifically, adaptive recombinant processes relates to processes
that automatically structure and restructure themselves so as to deliver
increasing value to the participants in the processes over time." (Spec. 1,
11. 9-13.)
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating through execution of a computer-implemented
function on a processor-based device a plurality of temporally-
sequenced recommended objects for delivery to a first user of a
computer-implemented system, wherein the recommended
objects are generated in accordance with an inference of a
preference that is based, at least in part, on a plurality of usage
behaviors, wherein a first behavior of the plurality of usage
behaviors is a subscription; and
providing to the first user through execution of a
computer-implemented function a reason for the delivery of at
least one object of the plurality of recommended objects, wherein
the reason is in accordance with the subscription and wherein the
reason comprises a language-based reference to a second
behavior of the plurality of usage behaviors, wherein the second
behavior of the plurality of usage behaviors is a behavior
exhibited by a second user of the computer-implemented system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bharat (US 7,568,148 B 1, iss. July 28, 2009),
2
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Carlson (US 2005/0267973 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2005), and Berghofer
(US 2003/0149612 Al, pub. Aug. 7, 2003).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bharat, Carlson, Berghofer, and Sharma
(US 7,921,036 Bl, iss. Apr. 5, 2011).
FINDINGS OF FACT
\Ve rely on the Examiner's findings of fact stated in the Final Office
Action rnailed December 27, 2012, and in the Answer. Additional findings
of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Claims l, 8, and 16
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue:
The Examiner contended that Bharat at col. 4 lines 35-40, col. 5
lines 17-37, col. 7 lines 36-67, Fig. 7a item 715 and Fig. 9 item
930 discloses generating through execution of a computer-
implemented function on a processor-based device a plurality of
temporally-sequenced recommended objects for delivery to a
first user of a computer-implemented system (Final Office
Action page 4, paragraph 1). However, these citations of Bharat
do not teach or suggest this claimed limitation. Rather, Bharat
discloses in these citations the functionally and technically
different capability of using temporal-based considerations
associated with documents in scoring said documents. That
capability is functionally different than delivering temporally-
sequenced recommended objects to a user.
(Appeal Br. 11.)
The Examiner disagrees and states that "as claimed, the objects are
merely defined as 'temporally-sequenced."' (Answer 6.) Moreover, the
3
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Examiner finds that "Bharat discloses both arranging recommended objects
by temporal considerations, as well as sequencing the presentation of objects
temporally." (Answer 6.) Specifically, the Examiner finds:
As acknowledged by Appellant, in col. 4, lines 40-63, col. 5,
lines 1-10, col. 7, lines 8-39, Bharat discloses structuring
publications into clusters based on a scoring system. The scoring
system utilizes factors related to the quality of the source, the
recency of the document (e.g., publication date), and the
freshness of the document (e.g., the amount of time passed
between the event and the publication directed to the event).
Bharat analyzes documents to determine a canonical document
(e.g., a document of a group of documents directed to a topic
having the earliest publication date) ....
(Answer 6.)
We agree with the Examiner. Applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the claim term "temporally-sequenced recommended
objects," includes arranging objects, e.g., articles, by temporal
considerations such as how recently the article was published.
Bharat discloses forming clusters and sub-clusters of documents based
on how frequently a particular term appears in the documents. (See Bharat,
col. 6, 11. 20-26.) Documents within, e.g., a sub-cluster, may be identified
by publication date. (See id. at col. 7, 11. 13-14.) A user may initiate a query
using a key word. (See id. at col. 7, 11. 18-22.) Thus, clusters that match the
topic can be identified and scored such that "a cluster with the most recent
canonical documents may be scored higher than other clusters." (See id. at
col. 7, 11. 25-26, 31-33.)
Appellants next argue:
Bharat does not teach or suggest providing to the first user
through execution of a computer-implemented function a reason
for the delivery of at least one object of the plurality of
4
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
recommended objects. The Examiner contended that Bharat col.
9 lines 35-52 discloses this limitation (Final Office Action page
4 paragraph 1 ). However this citation merely describes a
computer algorithm for comparing and sorting document
clusters.
(Appeal Br. 11-12.)
The Examiner answers:
Bharat discloses recommending publications to a user based on
a scoring system. The documents are presented in a listing in
which the most recent, highly scored document is listed first.
. . . A list of documents presented to a user in which the first
document is clearly selected and presented to the user in a high
priority position visible to the user is reasonable [sic] considered
to be a communicated "reason for the delivery".
Notably, while Examiner maintains that the ordered lists
of Bharat constitute reasons for delivery, secondary reference
Carlson further discloses a feedback mechanism in which a
personalized feed to [sic] continually honed through user
feedback and information provided to the user regarding section
criteria (*see at least paragraphs [007 6] and [0077] in which the
relevancy of the publication is communicated in a transparent
fashion to the user and the user provides response followed by
additional explanatory information by the system). The
teachings of Carlson are also reasonably considered to be
explanatory reasons for delivery.
(Answer 8-9.)
In other words, the Examiner finds that presenting the documents in a
prioritized order based on the user's selection of topics and other usage
behaviors reasonably communicates a "reason for delivery." The Examiner
additionally finds that Carlson discloses a feedback mechanism through
"which the relevancy of the publication is communicated in a transparent
fashion to the user and the user provides response." (Answer 9.)
5
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Even if we agree with Appellants that "Bharat col. 9 lines 35-52"
"merely describes a computer algorithm for comparing and sorting
document clusters" (Appeal Br. 11-12), Appellants do not persuasively
argue why Carlson does not disclose a mechanism for communicating
relevancy, i.e., a reason for delivery, to the user.
Appellants next argue:
The Examiner admitted that Bharat does not teach: generation of
recommended objects in accordance with a subscription (Final
Office Action page 4 paragraph 2). Rather, the Examiner
contended, "However, as evidenced by Carlson et al. it is well
known in the art to utilize a subscription to filter/tailor, i.e.,
'recommend' documents to a user," (Final Office Action page 4
paragraph 3). However, Carlson does not disclose utilizing
subscriptions as a basis for recommending documents whereby
the recommendation is based on inferring a preference from the
subscription. Inferring a preference implies a degree of
uncertainty with respect to determining the preference. Carlson
merely discloses users receiving information in accordance with
their personal subscriptions-there is therefore no uncertainty with
respect to the users' preferences because they are explicitly
established by the users, and hence there is no capability for the
inferring of preferences from subscriptions in the disclosures of
Carlson.
(Appeal Br. 12.)
The Examiner answer that "Carlson was entered as evidence that use
of user subscriptions in determining content to recommend to a user is well
known" and that "Bharat infers a preference but merely fails to identify a
user's subscriptions and a source of information about the user." (Answer
9-10.)
We agree with the Examiner. Bharat discloses that the user may make
a query, i.e., indicate a topic, and that the system will then select documents
6
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
to be delivered, i.e., a preference for the delivered documents is inferred.
(See Bharat, col. 7, 11. 18-33, col. 11, 11. 16-19.) Additionally, Carlson
discloses a user selecting categories that are of interest (Carlson i-f 64) and
modifying the delivered articles based on whether the user has a
subscription, i.e., delivering an entire article if the user is a subscriber but
only a summary if the user is not. (Carlson i-f 58.)
Appellants next argue that despite the Examiner's findings to the
contrary,
Berghofer does not disclose subscriptions, much less providing
reasons for recommendations that are in accordance with
subscriptions. Further, Berghofer does not disclose providing a
user who receives a plurality of recommended objects with a
reason for delivery of one of the objects that is presumably based
on the Berghofer' s "neighboring users" algorithm. And further,
Berghofer does not disclose providing reasons to users for
recommendations that comprise language-based references to
other users.
The Examiner answers that Berghofer teaches that
a user is provided with a positive item recommendation or a warn
away recommendation in [sic] the users neighboring users have
also rated the item highly or if the user's neighboring users have
rated the item poorly. The ratings are a reasonably [sic]
behaviors of second, third, fourth users etc. and the positive
recommend messaging and the warn away messages are
reasonably considered to be reasons based on the usage
behaviors of the other users.
(Answer 11, citing Berghofer i-fi-1 61---63.)
As discussed above, Carlson teaches use of user subscriptions to
determine delivered content. Appellants' attack on Berghofer individually
as not disclosing subscriptions is not persuasive. Nonobviousness is not
7
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
established by attacking references individually when the rejection is based
on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id.
With regard to Appellants' argument that "Berghofer does not
disclose providing reasons to users for recommendations that comprise
language-based references to other users" (Appeal Br. 13), Berghofer
discloses providing recommendations for items and providing warnings
against items. (See Berghofer i-fi-1 42, 61.) The recommendations may come
from "neighboring users" which Berghofer describes as users that, using
"similarity factors," "have a high degree of correlation to a user." (Id. i157.)
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that Berghofer teaches providing language based recommendations about an
item to a user. (See Final Action 5, citing Berghofer i-fi-161---64.)
Additionally, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to modify the system of Bharat, in view of Carlson, to include at
least the use of user subscriptions in determining recommended items for
delivery, and to provide a reason for the delivery of items in view of the
recommendations/warnings of Berghofer. (See id. at 6-7.)
In view of the above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under§ 103(a). Claims 8 and 16 contain
similar limitations and Appellants present similar arguments. (See Appeal
Br. 22-25, 34--38.) For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 16 under§ 103(a).
8
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Claims 2. 9. and 17
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the plurality of temporally-sequenced
recommended objects, wherein the recommended objects are
generated in accordance with the contents of at least one object
of the plurality of recommended objects.
Appellants argue that "while Bharat discloses in Fig. 5 'Analyzing
Content of Docs from Sources,' and then grouping the documents in
clusters, Bharat Fig. 5 does not specifically disclose that the result is
recommended (to a user) objects that are temporally sequenced." (Appeal
Br. 15.)
The Examiner answers that, "[a]s acknowledged by Appellant, the
scoring system which prioritizes content does so by incorporating
considerations of content of the publications/objects (see applied teachings
of Bharat at col. 6, lines 5-20 and Fig. 5)." (Answer 12.)
We agree with the Examiner. As noted above, Bharat discloses
forming clusters and sub-clusters of documents based on, e.g., how
frequently a particular term appears in the documents. In other words,
Bharat discloses generating recommended publications based on content.
(See Bharat, col. 6, 11. 20-26.) As also noted above, the documents are
temporally sequenced. (See Answer 6.)
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2 under§ 103(a). Claims 9 and 17 contain similar limitations and
Appellants present similar arguments. (See Appeal Br. 26-27, 38-39.) For
the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 9 and 17 under§ 103(a).
9
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Claims 3, 10, and 18
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the plurality of temporally-sequenced
recommended objects, wherein the recommended objects are
generated in accordance with the first user's input to a user-
controlled tuning function.
Appellants argue:
The Examiner cited Bharat col. 5 lines 17-35 as disclosing the
claimed limitation, "generating the plurality of temporally-
sequenced recommended objects, wherein the recommended
objects are generated in accordance with the first user's input to
a user-controlled tuning function," (Final Office Action page 7
paragraph 3). However, this cited disclosure of Bharat merely
recites, "the overall quality of the documents may be judged
directly by humans." It is unreasonable to posit that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
interpret this or other passages of the cited disclosure as teaching
or suggesting, "generating the plurality of temporally-sequenced
recommended objects, wherein the recommended objects are
generated in accordance with the first user's input to a user-
controlled tuning function," in view of the relevant disclosure in
the specification at page 44 lines 16-25.
(Appeal Br. 16-17.)
The Examiner answers that
Examiner directs Appellant's attention to the applied teachings
of Bharat at col. 5, lines 10-35 in which weighting is applied the
[sic] content based on a desired importance of topics and sources.
The weighting contributes to the scoring and ranking and thus
the selection of publication to be presented. This is reasonably a
user-controlled tuning function, as claimed.
(Answer 12.)
10
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
The Specification recites that a user "may also set explicit
recommendation tuning controls to adjust the adaptive recommendations to
her particular preferences." (Spec. 44, 11. 16-17.) However, Appellants do
not point us to any definition of "tuning function" in the Specification.
Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation to the term, a user query and
subsequent queries can be reasonably understood as a user-controlled tuning
function and an indication of importance.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3 under § 103 (a). Claims 10 and 18 contain similar limitations and
Appellants present similar arguments. (See Appeal Br. 27-29, 39--41.) For
the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10 and 18 under§ 103(a).
Claims 4, 5, and 11
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 4 and 5 based on their
dependence on claim 1. (Id. at 45--47, 17-18.) Appellants argue the
patentability of claim 11 based on its dependence on claim 8. (Id. at 45--48.)
For the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 8, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, and 11 under
§ 103(a).
Claims 6, 14, and 19
Claim 6 recites:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the plurality of temporally-sequenced
recommended objects for delivery to the first user, wherein the
recommended objects are generated in accordance with the
11
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
inference of the preference that is based, at least in part, on the
plurality of usage behaviors, wherein the first behavior of the
plurality of usage behaviors is the subscription, wherein the
subscription is to information that is generated by a third user of
the computer-implemented system.
Appellants argue:
The Examiner cited Carlson as disclosing, "the well-
known practice of utilizing a user's subscription to filter/tailor,
i.e., 'recommend' documents to the user," (Final Office Action
page 8 paragraph 3). However, Carlson's disclosures fail to
teach or suggest the claimed limitation, . . . since, as argued
above, Carlson does not disclose inferring a preference from a
subscription.
The Examiner further cited Berghofer as disclosing,
"recommending content to a first user based on actions/interests
and an associated [sic] with a plurality of users, i.e., usage
behaviors of a second user, third user etc," (Final Office Action
page 8 paragraph 4). Berghofer does not disclose subscriptions,
much less inferring preferences from them.
(Appeal Br. 20.)
For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, Appellants'
first argument is not persuasive of error.
that
With regard to Appellants' second argument, the Examiner answers
on further review of the limitation as presented, Carlson alone
meets the limitation as the subscription to publication
information utilized by Carlson at paragraphs [0058]-[0059] is
generated by a third user, i.e., the publisher. As the publisher is
providing content through the computer system, the publisher is
reasonably considered to be a third user of the system and the
publications are reasonably considered to be information
generated by a third user of the system.
(Answer 13.)
12
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's finding that, in Carlson,
the subscription is to information generated by a third user, i.e., a publisher,
and that the publisher is a third user of the system. The Examiner's answer
addresses the concerns raised in Appellants' second argument.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 6 under§ 103(a). Claims 14 and 19 contain similar
limitations and Appellants present similar arguments. (See Appeal Br. 30-
32, 41--43.) For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 14 and 19 under§ 103(a).
Claims 7, 15, and 20
Claim 7 recites:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing the reason to the first user, wherein providing
the reason to the user comprises providing additional explanatory
information upon request by the first user.
The Examiner finds that Bharat discloses the additional limitation of
claim 7 at "col. 10, lines 19-27 and col. 11, lines 15-22." (Final Action 9.)
Appellants argue that "Bharat col. 9 lines 35-52" does not disclose the
additional limitation of claim 7. (Appeal Br. 22.)
Appellants' argument, which does not address the portion of Bharat
relied on by the Examiner, does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7. Claims 15 and 20 contain similar limitations and
Appellants present similar arguments. (See Appeal Br. 32-34, 43--45.) For
the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 15 and 20 under§ 103(a).
13
Appeal2013-008065
Application 13/337,500
Appellants' other arguments have been considered but are not deemed
persuasive of error.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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
14