Ex Parte Forman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 201812623221 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/623,221 11/20/2009 22879 7590 08/10/2018 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR George Forman 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. 82249538 5875 EXAMINER KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2018 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE FORMAN and EV AN R. KIRSHENBAUM Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/623,221 Technology Center 3600 Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 31 have been 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed August 14, 2015, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 12, 2016, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 9, 2016, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 7, 2016. 2 The real party in interest is listed as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 canceled. Appeal Br. i (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants' invention relates to "enabl[ing] Web sites to customize their recommendations to users based not merely on a user's browsing behavior on that site but on other sites that talk about or offer similar potentially interesting items." Spec. ,r 9. System 100 can include customization logic 112, which ( 1) builds target sets 114 corresponding to potentially interesting items, 3 (2) observes user's browsing behavior, (3) detects targets in target set 114 and obtains targets relevant to the user, and (4) uses the targets to customize a web site (e.g., 118/122). Spec. ,r,r 11-14, 27, Fig. 1. For example, process 302 can detect user interactions on web sites and identify pertinent text in web page code (e.g., product name, such as a TV model a user is shopping for, present in "title" tag in HTML code), process 304 can match the text to terms in target set 114 (e.g., checking title substrings), and process 306 can generate or modify a user profile (e.g., 124) once a match is found (e.g., to include names of PIIs the targets are associated with). See Spec. ,r,r 26-28, 33-34, Figs. 1, 3--4. Based on the match, process 306 customizes a web page and modifies a user's profile ( e.g., remove a product from the user's profile once a purchase of a similar product is made). See Spec. ,r,r 34, 38-39, 46, Figs. 1, 3--4. 3 The Specification describes potentially interesting items or "PIIs" to include "products or services offered for sale, discussed, reviewed, or supported" "geographic locales," and "subjects about which descriptions or news articles may be provided." Spec. ,r 8. 2 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Illustrative claim 14 is reproduced below with emphases: 14. A method comprising: monitoring, by a computer, web site content from at least two web sites accessed by a user, the web sites being unaffiliated with one another; in response to monitoring interaction with the web site content by a user, extracting, by the computer, text from code representing the web site content; determining, by the computer, whether at least a portion of the extracted text matches at least a target text string in a set of target text strings obtained from web content providers, the target text strings associated with potentially interesting items offered by the web content providers; based on detecting a match between the at least a portion of the extracted text and at least the target text string in the set of target text strings, modifying, by the computer, a profile for the user, the modified profile including information from the at least two web sites that are unaffiliated with one another; and communicating, by the computer, the modified profile over a computer network to a particular web site, the communicating of the modified profile causing customization of web content presented by the particular web site in response to a request for content from the user. Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Li Ramer Saadat US 2008/0209050 Al US 2008/0214157 Al US 2009/0327075 Al The Rejections Aug. 28, 2008 Sept. 4, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2-5. 3 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28-30, and 32-364 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li and Ramer. Final Act. 6-10. Claims 17, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li, Ramer, and Saadat. Final Act. 10-11. THE PATENT-INELIGIBLE REJECTION Regarding representative claim 14, 5 the Examiner concludes the claim is not patent eligible under § 101. Final Act. 2. The Examiner states the claimed process includes the abstract idea of "compiling user activity to determine a profile across multiple websites. Compiling user activity to determine a profile across multiple websites is a certain method of organizing human activities (profile generation)." Final Act. 4. The Examiner further determines "there is no improvement to another technology or technical field" and "no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself." Final Act. 4. The Examiner states "monitoring and selecting user activities, and determining a profile across multiple websites" using a processor does not "qualify as 'significantly more' than the abstract idea." Final Act. 4. Summarizing various claim limitations, Appellants argue the Examiner has oversimplified the claimed invention to be directed to "profile 4 Although the rejection's heading omits certain claims and includes canceled claims (Final Act. 6), the rejection's body discusses the above claims (Final Act. 6-10). 5 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 6-10. We select claim 14 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 generation," and the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants assert the recited steps of modifying a profile and communicating the modified profile over a network to a computer server to customize a web site at the server specifies interactions between a physical entity (i.e., "a particular web site") and is more than a profile generation. Appeal Br. 7-8. Also, Appellants contend claim 1 recites additional features that are sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible matter. Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellants argue the claimed subject is inventive over the cited art and thus transforms the recited subject matter into patent-eligible application. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue claim 1 is analogous to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and is rooted in computer technology overcoming a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, "namely a computer network that provides web pages and web sites" (Appeal Br. 9), and does not merely recite using a computer to perform the recited process (Appeal Br. 10). See also Reply Br. 4---6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 14 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101? ANALYSIS In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Court set forth a two-step analytical framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter. First, "determine whether the 5 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If so, "consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the claim" into "significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mayo/Alice Step 1 Step one in the Mayo/Alice framework involves looking at the "focus" of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This "inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Claim 14 recites five steps. Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). They include ( 1) "monitoring ... web site content from at least two web sites accessed by a user," (2) "in response to monitoring interaction with the web site content by a user, extracting ... text from code representing the web site content," (3) "determining ... whether at least a portion of the extracted text matches at least a target text string in a set of target text strings obtained from web content providers," (4) "based on detecting a match between the at least a portion of the extracted text and at least the target text string in the set of target text strings, modifying ... a profile for the user," and (5) "communicating ... the modified profile over a computer network to a 6 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 particular web site, the communicating of the modified profile causing customization of web content presented by the particular web site in response to a request for content from the user." Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). We agree with both the Examiner and Appellants that claim 14 's focus is directed to modifying a profile based on collected data (see Final Act. 4) as well as communicating the modified profile to a web site or a server ( claim 1 ), causing customization of web content presented by a web site (see Appeal Br. 7-8). That is, the Specification describes customizing a user's web site based on user's browsing behavior and other sites that discuss similar items using customization logic 112. Spec. ,r,r 9, 11, 34, 42- 43, 46, Figs. 1, 4 (406). The disclosure also explains one of the goals of customization logic 112 involves generating and modifying a user profile 124 so that web sites can be customized and dynamically modify information based on the user's profile and behavior, such as products viewed. See Spec. ,r,r 14, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, Fig. 3 (306), 4 (402). Regardless of characterizing claim 14' s focus as generating a user profile (Final Act. 4) or customizing a website's content (Appeal Br. 7-8) using user's behavior, which corresponds to the user's profile, the steps in claim 14 are directed to excluded subject matter, including one or more abstract ideas. Courts have found that steps of gathering, analyzing, and comparing information are directed to abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354--55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating the claims are directed to an abstract idea of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content and displaying results), Content Extraction and 7 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cri. 2014) (indicating the claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting data using a scanner and recognizing specific information within a collected dataset), and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating the claims are directed to an abstract idea of parsing and comparing information akin to collecting and recognizing data and classifying data in an organized manner). Additionally, courts have found combining or manipulating data into a new form, such as a resulting device profile, is directed to an abstract idea. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (explaining that "mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information," including combining first and second data into the device profile, are abstract). Similarly, the steps above in claim 14 are directed to the abstract ideas of gathering information ( e.g., "extracting ... text from code representing the web site content"), organizing (see Ans. 2), analyzing or comparing information ( e.g., "monitoring ... web site content from at least two web sites accessed by a user" and "determining ... whether at least a portion of the extracted text matches at least a target text string in a set of target text strings obtained from web content providers"), and compiling (see Final Act. 4) or manipulating information to create a profile ( e.g., "based on detecting a match between the at least a portion of the extracted text and at least the target text string in the set of target text strings, modifying ... a profile for the user"). Also, transmitting such information (see Ans. 2) (e.g., "communicating ... the modified profile over a computer network to a particular web site") is considered by courts to be directed to an abstract 8 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, even when such information is limited to particular content ( e.g., "text from code," "target text strings," and "a profile" as recited in claim 14 ), it is well-settled that such steps, such as collecting certain information, is within the realm of abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. The "communicating" step in claim 14 additionally includes the recitation "the communicating of the modified profile causing customization of web content presented by the particular web site in response to a request for content from the user." Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). Appellants contend this recitation "specifies an interaction between a physical entity, namely 'a particular web site' and the remaining elements of claim 1," and is not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 8. We disagree. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the patent claims concerned a method of customizing web page content as a function of user-specific information and the user's navigation history. Id. at 1369. The court found such method steps of customizing web page content as a function of a user's personal characteristics ( 1) is a fundamental practice long prevalent, (2) is analogous to tailoring information (e.g., newspaper inserts) based on a user's characteristics, such as a user location, and (3) is an abstract idea. Id. at 1369. Similarly, claim 14 tracks or monitors user's interactions with web sites ( e.g., user characteristics) and customizes a web content presented on a web site as a function of a user's personal characteristics ( e.g., "the communicating of the modified profile causing customization of web content presented by the particular web site in response to a request for 9 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 content from the user"). Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.); see also Spec. ,r 34, Fig. 3 (step 306). Granted, the website customization in claim 14 is indirectly a function of a user's characteristics. That is, "modifying the first profile for the user" in claim 1 is based on a detected match, which is detected based on (1) "at least one substring obtained from extracted text" corresponding to a web page the user interacts with and (2) "a target text string in a set of target text strings, the target text strings in the set ... corresponding to potentially interesting items offered by the web content providers." Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.). Even so, the recited extracted text corresponds to the web page the user is interacting with (e.g., extracts user's personal characteristics) and the target text string relates to PIIs, which can be inferred from the user's previous activities (e.g., user's personal characteristics) on the same or other websites (see Spec. ,r 9). Lastly, we note that narrowing a field in claim 14 to customizing web content upon communicating a modified profile over a computer network does not make the claim any less abstract. See Cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract."). For the foregoing reasons, we determine claim 14 is directed to one or more abstract ideas. 6 6 See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd, 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea ( encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.") 10 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Mayo/Alice Step 2 In this step, we consider the elements of claim 14 both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements add enough to transform the claim into significantly more than a patent- ineligible concept. Step two involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. An "inventive concept" requires more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in" by the relevant community. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79--80). The Examiner concluded claim 14 uses a processor or generic computer to perform computer functions but that these uses do not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 4--5. We agree that each of claim 14's steps uses a "computer," and that this use of a generic computer (see Spec. ,r 49) does not transform an abstract idea into patent- eligible subject invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (holding that "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the claims recite both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that merely restate their individual functions .... That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under step two."). Appellants argue that claim 14 contains an inventive concept because its subject matter is inventive over the cited references. Appeal Br. 9. But "[e]Hgibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd v. 11 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Comcast Cable Comms., LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). For example, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Next, Appellants assert claim 14 is analogous to DDR, 773 F.3d 1245. Appeal Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellants contend claim 14's solution "is similarly rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, namely a computer network that provides web pages and web sites" (Appeal Br. 9) and "to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" (Appeal Br. 10). Appellants also contend the claims improve a computer function. See Reply Br. 4, 7. These arguments are unavailing. The claims at issue recite a computer network ( claims 1, 14, and 19) and a computer server ( claims 1 and 19) generically, which as noted above, do not transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating "[t]hat a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive"). Also, clairn 14 as a whole, as previously discussed 1 is not on an improvement in the computer network ( or the computer or computer server for that matter) as tools (see Final Act. 4 ), but on certain independently abstract ideas noted above that, at best, use computer components in their conventional manner, including to customize a web site based on a detected match as recited in the c1aims. See Elec. Pm,ver Cirp., 830 F .3d at 1354. Nor does representative claim 14 address a problem unique to the Internet. In essence, claim 14's inventive concept is to customize 12 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 content as a function of a user~ s interests, represented in a profile, by matching similar interests at multiple vendors. The Specification describes this concept by noting products/services a user has viewed, matching the views to similar products/services at multiple locations, including categories associated with products, building a profile based on the matches, and customizing content based on the user's behavior. See Spec. i;i-: 25----28, 34, 38----39. As noted above, this concept describes, and claim 14 recites, an ordered combination more akin to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which addresses customizing a web site but was still found to lack an inventive concept that supports eligibility. Id., 792 F.3d at 1370. Like Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, claim 14 recites no more than generic computer elements ( e.g., computer network) tasked with communicating modified profiles to a web site and providing customized web content presented by the web site in response to a user request. Id. That is, the steps in claim 14 do nothing more than apply abstract ideas, restricted to the Internet, using generic computer components. Id. at 1370-71. Furthermore, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, distinguishes itself from DDR, stating its claims do not address problems unique to the Internet. Id. at 1371. Similarly, claim 14 does not address a problem unique to the Internet. Claim 14 differs from DDR's claims, because the claim does not recite creating a hybrid website that has the 'look and feel' elements from the host website and avoids transporting the visitor to a third party's web site. See DDR, 765 F.3d at 1257-59. For the above reasons, claim 14's limitations, viewed "both individually and as an ordered combination," do not amount to significantly 13 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 more than the judicial exception and do not sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See Final Act. 5; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Appellants contend independent claims 1, 14, and 19 are similarly directed to patent-eligible matter but are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 10. We are not persuaded for reasons previously stated. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 14 and claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36, which are not separately argued. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LI AND RAMER Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Li teaches all its limitations, except for the "detecting a match" and "modifying the first profile" steps. Final Act. 6 ( citing Li ,r 2 7, Abstract). The Examiner turns to Ramer in combination with Li to teach or suggest these limitations. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Ramer ,r,r 57, 66, 79-80, 86, 105-106, 123-124, 138, 146, 186,240,252-254,264,275,376,457,467-77,508,534, 820-24,846, 903); Ans. 4 (citing Ramer ,r,r 47, 57, 123). Appellants argue Li and Ramer do not teach claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 10-13. Among other arguments, Appellants assert, if Ramer' s mobile subscriber characteristics (Ramer ,r 57) create the first profile, then Ramer's cited passages do not further teach modifying this profile based on detecting a match as recited. Appeal Br. 12-17; Reply Br. 11. Appellants also emphasize that obtaining search results in response to matching a search query does not result in modifying a profile associated with a user. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 12. 14 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Li and Ramer collectively as proposed would have taught or suggested logic instructions executable to cause a processor to "modify the first profile for the user" based on "the detected match" as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are persuaded of error. The Examiner cites many passages in Ramer to teach the recited logic instructions executable to "modify the first profile for the user," without further discussion. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Ramer ,r,r 57, 79-80, 86, 124, 186, 240, 820-24, 846, 850, 903). In the Answer, the Examiner elaborates Ramer teaches creating a profile for a user based on user queries and other related activities and updating the profile "based on a user entering various search queries or strings of text across one or more unrelated webpage, and the queries being matched with relevant content." Ans. 4 (citing Ramer ,r,r 57, 123); see also Ans. 3. Turning to Ramer, cited paragraph 57 (Final Act. 7; Ans. 4) teaches a data facility containing "mobile subscriber characteristics" ( e.g., 112) related to mobile users. Ramer ,r,r 57, 146, Figs. 3--4. Ramer states the facility may "continually, or periodically, update data for individual users," which may include shopping habits (e.g., views of or purchases of goods and services), usage patterns (including those based on location, time of day, or other variables), content viewing history, and presented content viewed by/not viewed by user. Ramer ,r 57. Ramer also teaches "a category may be created including a user profile" based on an associated "mobile web 15 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 browser activity and a mobile subscriber characteristic." Ramer ,r 7. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Ramer teaches or suggests a user profile (e.g., a user profile category based on a particular mobile subscriber's characteristic and associated mobile web browser activity) that is updated or modified over time. See Ramer ,r,r 7, 57. However, continually updating user data does not teach or suggest that such modification to a user profile occurs based on any specific event- let alone the recited "detected match," involving "a match between at least one substring obtained from the extracted text and a target text string in a set of target text strings" in claim 1. Appeal Br. i (Claims App.). Ramer does not discuss in paragraph 57 what initiates the periodic updates, such that Ramer suggests modifying a user profile "based on the detected match" as recited. Ramer ,r 57. Ramer also teaches making recommendations or predictions regarding other interesting products for a user based on the user's profile. Ramer ,r 123, cited in Ans. 4; see also Ramer, Fig. 21. This is achieved by collecting data, such as products viewed or purchased online, comparing this data to similar data collected from others, predicting other information/products of interest based on the comparison, and displaying suggestions ( e.g., based on entered key strokes or by ranking/ordering content). See Ramer ,r,r 123-125. However, Ramer does not state the collected data includes "text" extracted from a web page or "at least one substring obtained from the extracted text" as recited in claim 1, such that the recited comparison to "a target text string in a set of target text strings" occurs. Ramer ,r 123. The collected data in Ramer used to make recommendations or predictions may in fact be in a format other than "text," 16 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 "substrings," or "a target text string" (e.g., alphanumeric code, headers, fields, etc.). Whether Ramer's teachings further suggest to one skilled in the art formulating the collected data from one user as "at least one substring obtained from the extracted text" and formulating the similar data collected from other users as "a target text string in a set of target text strings" as recited, such that a match is detected between the two and a profile is modified when a match is detected as claimed, has not been sufficiently established on the record. See Appeal Br. 13 (stating "there is no indication in Ramer that matching the search terms of a search query and returning search results causes the modifying of a profile.") That is, the Examiner has not demonstrated adequately that Ramer's teaching suggests to one skilled in the art to extract text and compare a substring of the text with a target text string to detect a match as recited. See Final Act. 6-7 ( stating only "appearance or results [are] customized based on profile information"). In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner discusses paragraph 123, stating Ramer' s process uses queries of a user and other related user activity on a webpage .. . to create profile for a user; the profile is created and then subsequently governs what search results are sent to a user, and this 'profile' is updated based on a user entering various search queries or strings of text across one or more unrelated webpage, and the queries being matched with relevant content. Ans. 4. Based on this explanation, the Examiner appears to map the user's entered search queries to the recited "at least one substring obtained from the extracted text" and the discussed "relevant content" to the recited "target text string in a set of target text strings." See Ans. 4. 17 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 However, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently how a search query entered by a user can be correlated to "the extracted text" "corresponding to the web page" as recited in claim 1. And even if text corresponding to the web page need not be text from the web page but only corresponds to the web page based on the search query's text, the Examiner's explanation does not additionally explain what the "relevant content" is and how such content corresponds to "a target text string in a set of target text strings" as required by claim 1. See Ans. 4. Ramer further teaches mobile subscriber information may be used with a search (e.g., keywords) to customize a user's search, to predict the user's interest, and to help better assess the desired search targets of a user. Ramer ,r 146. Although this teaching may suggest using text corresponding to the web page ( e.g., the key words) to customize and determine an appropriate search target (e.g., what the user is interested in), there is no discussion of matching this text with "a target text string in a set of target text strings" and then, based on a match, modifying a user's profile. See Ramer ,r 146. Nor, as noted above, has the Examiner sufficiently explained how Ramer teaches or suggests this recited feature. See Final Act. 6-7 ( citing but not explaining Ramer ,r 146); see also Ans. 3--4 (not discussing this passage). Ramer even teaches mobile subscriber characteristic information may be used in connection with "a category filter or other filter used to refine search results." Ramer ,r 146. Ramer discuses a filtering protocol or "category filtering" for analyzing, refining, or filtering user input and/or search results. Ramer ,r 105, cited in Final Act. 6. This category filtering involves identifying other users whose have similar rating patterns to those 18 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 of an active user and then using rating patterns of similar users to predict information relevant to the user. Ramer ,r 105. Ramer further teaches a collection of preference data from a large group, which can be analyzed to identify subgroups or subgroup characteristics with similar preference profiles, as well as summarizing or modeling a preference subgroup and creating a preference function using the model/summary. Ramer ,r 106. Whether these passages teach or suggest extracting text "corresponding to the web page" and matching "at least a substring obtained from the extracted text" with "a target text string in a set of target text strings" as recited in claim 1 has not been explained by the Examiner. See Final Act. 6 ( citing Ramer ,r 105 when discussing "monitoring interaction of a user" limitation); see Ans. 3--4 (failing to elaborate on paragraphs 105 and 106). Lastly, we have reviewed the remaining, cited paragraph in Ramer (Final Act. 6-7) but fail to see an adequate teaching or suggestion of logic instructions executable to cause a processor to (1) "detect a match" and (2) "modify the first profile of the user" based on the detected match, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has not explained adequately how these additional paragraphs teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 3--4. Nor will we speculate in the first instance on appeal. As noted above, Ramer teaches or suggests some of the features recited in claim 1, including modifying a user profile. However, given the record before us, we are constrained to determine there is insufficient evidence that one skilled in the art would have recognized detecting a match between a substring of extracted text corresponding to a web page and a target text string in a set of target text strings and modifying a user profile based on the detected match, as recited in claim 1. 19 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of (I) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 14 and 19, which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8- 10, 13, 21, 23-25, 28-30, and 32-36 for similar reasons. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Claims 17, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected based on Li, Ramer, and Saadat. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner finds Saadat also teaches computing a target that has code from the target text string and detecting a match based on substrings of extracted text string. Final Act. 10-11 ( citing Saadat ,r,r 30-40). Upon review, Saadat teaches (1) determining an advertisement campaign target match and whether a match has been determined (Saadat ,r 30), (2) storing the result data as bitset or bitmap structures and hash map 420 (Saadat ,r,r 31-33), and (3) using the bitset and hash maps to remove or add advertisements (Saadat ,r,r 33). See also Saadat ,r 35. But, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained where in these passages Saadat teaches or suggests extracting text strings, detecting a match based on substrings of extracted text, or a target text string as recited in independent claims 1 and 14. See Final Act. 10-11. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, 26, and 27. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36 under§ 101. We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23-30, and 32-36 under§ 103. 20 Appeal2017-000474 Application 12/632,221 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 21 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation