Ex Parte Gordon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

12435116 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/435,116 05/04/2009 Mark Gordon TRCP.P0023US/11605379 2675
29053 7590 02/14/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
ALLEN, BRITTANY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2017 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK GORDON and KEVIN MCCURRY
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,1161
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—14 and 16—23, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “managing and displaying collaborative
content in a database,” including verifying accuracy and detecting bias in
user-generated content. Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Reuters
(Scientific) Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A system for managing and displaying collaborative
content, comprising:
an editor content module interfacing with a
pharmaceutical database and configured to provide the editor­
generated content for at least one pharmaceutical to a display
device;
a user content module configured to receive user input for
the pharmaceutical from a user interface module and provide the
user input as user-generated content for the pharmaceutical to the
display device;
a validation module interfacing with the user content
module, wherein the validation module is configured to compare
the user-generated content for the pharmaceutical to a number of
instances at least one different user submitted substantially
similar content for the pharmaceutical in order to verify the
accuracy of the user-generated content and provide the verified
accuracy to the display device; and
a bias detection module interfacing with the user content
module, wherein the bias detection module is configured to
detect a probability of bias in the user-generated content for the
pharmaceutical using statistical analysis and provide the
probability of bias to the display device.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3—5, 7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Toussaint et al. (US 2004/00029933 Al;
Jan. 1, 2004) and Work et al. (US 2006/0042483 Al; Mar. 2, 2006). Final
Act. 2.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Toussaint, Work, and lams (US 2007/0033092 Al;
Feb. 8, 2007). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Toussaint, Work, and Vander Mey et al. (US 7,519,562 Bl;
Apr. 14, 2009). Final Act. 2.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Toussaint, Work, and Petty (US 2009/0119258 Al;
May 7, 2009). Final Act. 2.
Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Toussaint, Work, and Smiler (US 2008/0065649 Al;
Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act. 2.
Claims 16—18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of lams, Work, and Toussaint. Final Act. 3.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of lams, Work, Toussaint, and Petty. Final Act. 3.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of lams, Work, Toussaint, and Smiler. Final Act. 3.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Toussaint or Work teaches or
suggests a validation module “to verify the accuracy of the user-generated
content [for the pharmaceutical] and provide the verified accuracy to the
display device,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Work teaches or suggests a bias
detection module “to detect a probability of bias in the user-generated
content for the pharmaceutical using statistical analysis and provide the
probability of bias to the display device,” as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Toussaint
and Work for purposes of claim 1 without the benefit of hindsight?
3
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
4. Did the Examiner err in finding lams teaches or suggests
“validating an accuracy of the user-generated content for the
pharmaceutical,” as recited in claim 16?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—14 and 21
A) Validation Module
Claim 1 recites user-generated content for “at least one
pharmaceutical” and a validation module “to verify the accuracy of the user­
generated content and provide the verified accuracy to the display device.”
The Examiner relies on Toussaint and Work as separately teaching the
claimed validation module. Final Act. 4—5 (Toussaint), 5 (Work).
Appellants contend Toussaint merely “verifies tracks for a music album and
includes or excludes such tracks from metadata associated with the music
album based on votes.” Br. 12.
However, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s reasoning
that it would have been obvious to modify the prior art to use a
pharmaceutical because “the benefits would apply regardless of the type of
data.” Final Act. 6. Appellants also have not addressed the Examiner’s
finding “Appellant’s specification teaches that the display of user-generated
content is displayed after it’s been validated (pg. 15 li. 8-22), this discussion
being the only suggestion of displaying content accuracy.” Ans. 3. For
example, in the Appeal Brief, the only written description cited by
Appellants for the “validation module” discusses displaying content
determined to be accurate, with no mention of displaying any other indicator
of accuracy. Br. 3 (citing Spec. 3:14—15, 16:1—9). Given this admission as
to claim scope, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding Toussaint’s displaying verified data teaches or suggests to “provide
4
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
the verified accuracy to the display device” within the scope of the written
description identified by Appellants. Thus, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Toussaint teaches or suggests the claimed
validation module.
Appellants make a similar argument against Work: “the verification
indicator of Work, indicating whether a user is real/exists, fails to teach or
even fairly suggest Appellants validation module.” Br. 12. We are
unpersuaded for the reasons discussed above for Toussaint. We also agree
with the Examiner that Work discloses displaying a “verification indicator.”
Ans. 5 (citing Work || 198—201). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us
the Examiner erred in finding Work teaches the claimed validation module.
B) Bias Detection Module
Claim 1 recites a bias detection module “to detect a probability of bias
in the user-generated content for the pharmaceutical using statistical analysis
and provide the probability of bias to the display device.”
Appellants concede Work teaches determining “Network
Independence” and “how reciprocal endorsements amongst user profiles in a
social network indicate a degree of potential bias,” but argue this fails to
teach “statistical analysis to determine bias.” Br. 13. Appellants again have
not sufficiently addressed the Examiner’s finding that “analysis of a person’s
network and determination of degree of bias is the usage of statistical
analysis. There is no requirement in the claims or specification on what
statistical analysis must comprise.” Ans. 3; Work | 62.
We also agree with the Examiner that “Work teaches displaying a
verification identifier that indicates the extent to which information that has
been provided by a particular user has been verified by a third party.” Final
Act. 23 (citing Work| 198, Fig. 4). For example, “[i]f the confidence level
5
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
is 70 or higher, confidence will be reported as ‘High.’” Work 1199. Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Work
teaches or suggests to “provide the probability of bias to the display device.”
C) Hindsight & Reasons to Combine
Appellants argue the Examiner relied on hindsight without sufficient
reason to combine Toussaint and Work. Br. 14—18. However, “[f]or the
technique’s use to be obvious, the skilled artisan need only be able to
recognize, based on her background knowledge, its potential to improve the
device and be able to apply the technique.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google
Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that “[b]oth Toussaint and Work
aim to determine if data submitted by users is accurate and reliable.” Ans. 4.
Work “discusses how the reputation of a user can indicate that the data
provided by that user is reliable.” Id. (citing Work 13). “This is further
discussed in paragraph 0062 [of Work], with respect to using the user’s
network of endorsers to determine whether the particular user has bias.” Id.
“Based on the teachings of Work, it would have been obvious ... to have
modified Toussaint to have included a bias detection module [as taught by
Work] . . . because it can indicate when another user has a prejudice against
or in favor of something.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Work 162).
Although Appellants argue they cannot “guess as to any motivation
why Toussaint would concern itself with ‘bias’ when attempting to compile
track meta-data” (Br. 18), the combination of Toussaint and Work is not
limited to just music tracks for the reasons discussed above. Moreover, even
for music, a bias detection module could detect, for example, a group of
friends sharing the same bootleg album with the same misspelling.
6
Appeal 2016-004831
Application 12/435,116
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2—14 and 21, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See Br. 19; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 16—20, 22, and 23
Appellants contend, in addition to the same arguments they provided
against claim 1 above, that they “are at a loss as to how the perceived
credibility of other users (for rating ‘complex products’) [as taught by lams]
relates to or even fairly suggests ‘validating an accuracy of the user­
generated content for the pharmaceutical’, as recited by Independent Claim
16.” Br. 20. However, we reject this argument for the same reasons we
rejected Appellants’ argument that Toussaint and Work did not apply to
pharmaceuticals. See Final Act. 6 (discussing claim 1 in finding “the
benefits would apply regardless of the type of data”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, and
claims 17—20, 22, and 23, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See Br. 19, 22—23; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—14 and 16—23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7