Ex Parte Johansson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13597473 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/597,473 08/29/2012 Jonas Johansson 1009-0255/P37420 US1 7912
7590
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
VU, VIET D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONAS JOHANSSON, ANDRE POULIN, and
CHENG JUN LI
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,4731
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—25, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget L
M Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 24, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 16, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 17, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
March 5, 2015 (“Final Act.”) which incorporates by reference the Non-Final
Office Action mailed September 22, 2014 (Non-Final Act.); and original
Specification, filed August 29, 2012 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to techniques for aggregating data
maintained across multiple social network services using a social network
service (SNS) aggregator. Spec. 11; Abstract. An SNS aggregator is a
computerized platform that includes account holders associated with
external network-accessible SNS accounts of multiple social network
services. Spec. Tflf 4, 7, 22, and 26; Abstract. The SNS aggregator, shown in
Figure 2, collects access tokens corresponding to the associated external
network-accessible SNS accounts, identifies data-sharing relationships
between pairs of account holders having linked accounts within the SNS
aggregator, and then uses the identified data-sharing relationships and the
access tokens to assemble a data feed for an SNS aggregator’s account
holder (a first account holder). Spec. Tflf 7, 26, 28, 38, and 40; Abstract.
Figure 2 is reproduced below:
Figure 2 illustrates a relationship between an SNS aggregator,
a plurality of account holders, and a plurality of external SNS platforms.
2
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
Representative Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 22 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'.
1. A method of operating a computerized social network
service (SNS) aggregator having a plurality of account holders,
the method comprising:
for each account holder, collecting and storing identifiers
for one or more external network-accessible SNS accounts
associated with the account holder;
for each account holder, collecting and storing an access
token corresponding to each of the associated external network-
accessible SNS accounts;
identifying data-sharing relationships between pairs of
account holders having linked accounts established within the
SNS aggregator service;
for a first account holder, identifying one or more other
account holders having a data-sharing relationship with the first
account holder;
accessing one or more external network-accessible SNS
accounts for each of the other account holders, using the
corresponding stored access tokens for the other account holder;
and
assembling a data feed for the first account holder using
data items retrieved from the external network-accessible SNS
accounts for the other account holders.
App. Br. 20-27 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejection & References
Claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borggaard et al. (US 2012/0278329 Al; published Nov. 1,
2012; “Borggaard”) and Mitchell et al. (US 2013/0103757 Al; published
Apr. 25, 2013; “Mitchell”). Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are
whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests the following limitations:
(1) “identifying data-sharing relationships between pairs of
account holders having linked accounts established within the
SNS aggregator service;
for a first account holder, identifying one or more other
account holders having a data-sharing relationship with the first
account holder;
accessing one or more external network-accessible SNS
accounts for each of the other account holders, using the
corresponding stored access tokens for the other account holder;
and
assembling a data feed for the first account holder using
data items retrieved from the external network-accessible SNS
accounts for the other account holders,”
as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 12 and 22. App. Br. 9-16; Reply Br. 2-4;
(2) “establishing linked accounts by storing, for each account
holder, internal connection relationships entered by the account
holder into an SNS aggregator interface,”
as recited in Appellants’ claim 2. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4;
(3) “an Open Authentication Key corresponding to the
external network-accessible SNS,”
as recited in Appellants’ claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 4, 13, 24,
and 25. App. Br. 16—17;
(4) “identifying, from one or more of the external network-
accessible SNS accounts, the first account holder’s external
connection relationships with a third party;
identifying a respective account on the SNS aggregator
for the third party;
4
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
establishing and storing a new data-sharing relationship
within the SNS aggregator between the first account holder and
the third party,”
as recited in Appellants’ claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 16. App. Br.
17—18; Reply Br. 5; and
(5) “scanning the first account holder’s external connection
relationships within the one or more external social network
services;
storing updated external connection relationships with
additional third parties in the SNS aggregator; and
establishing and storing updated data-sharing
relationships within the SNS aggregator for the first account
holder and the additional third parties,”
as recited in Appellants’ claim 7 and similarly recited in claim 17. App. Br.
18; Reply Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 8—12, 14, 15, and 18—23 based on
Borggaard and Mitchell
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Borggaard’s
server 101a, shown in Figure 1, teaches Appellants’ claimed “computerized
social network service (SNS) aggregator” having a plurality of account
holders/users’ profiles linked by common features or social graphs. Ans. 6—
7 (citing Borggaard 28—30, 32, Fig. 1); Final Act. 3 (citing Borggaard
134). The Examiner also finds Borggaard’s user profiles in a third-party
server 103 teach external network-accessible SNS accounts, as claimed.
Ans. 7—8 (citing Borggaard Fig. 1; || 29, 32, and 34); Final Act. 3.
Borggaard’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
5
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
100
\
Borggaard’s Figure 1 is a high-level block diagram illustrating a system
for tracking feeds in a social network. Borggaard 110.
The Examiner acknowledges Borggaard does not disclose an access
token corresponding to an external network-accessible SNS account, but
relies on Mitchell for teaching the access token to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Non-Final Act. 4.3
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Borggaard. Particularly, Appellants argue Borggaard does not teach or
suggest “identifying data-sharing relationships between pairs of SNS
aggregator service account holders having linked accounts established
within the SNS aggregator service,” as claimed (App. Br. 11); rather,
3 The citation is to the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 22, 2014,
which is incorporated by reference in the Final Office Action mailed March
5,2015 (Final Act. 2).
6
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
Borggaard describes ‘“social networks’ provided by the social network
software/application 116[, which] are not SNS aggregators, nor do they
include SNS aggregator accounts with links established within an SNS
aggregator” (App. Br. 14 (citing Borggaard Tflf 28—30, 32)). Thus,
Appellants argue, Borggaard provides external social networks and
relationships “within each of the external-network accessible social
networks, not relationships between SNS aggregator account holders.” App.
Br. 14. Appellants also argue Borggaard does not teach or suggest the
succeeding steps of: identifying other account holder(s) having a data-
sharing relationship with a first account holder; accessing external network-
accessible SNS account(s) for the other account holders; and assembling a
data feed for the first account holder, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15—16;
Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 6—9. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit and
exclusive definition of the claimed term “social network service (SNS)
7
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
aggregator.” Rather, Appellants’ Specification generally describes SNS
aggregators in a non-limiting fashion as follows:
Because many SNS users use multiple services, several vendors
have produced social network service aggregation platforms,
referred to herein as SNS aggregators. For a given user, an SNS
aggregator can access multiple SNS accounts for the user, on
multiple SNS platforms, and collect the data visible to the user
through those platforms. . . .
SNS aggregator 100 is configured to access multiple external
SNS platforms 110. ... In addition to providing conventional
aggregation services, i.e., simply consolidating for each user the
feeds that the user would see if he logged into each of the external
platforms 110 separately, SNS aggregator 110 also provides its
own social network functionality to its users.. . . SNS aggregator
100 is an SNS in its own right.
Spec. 4, 28, and 33 (emphases added). In other words, the term “SNS
aggregator” is a computerized “platform” accessing, collecting, and
processing users’ data from multiple social network services (SNSs). Id. at
114, 28. An SNS aggregator may itself be a social network service. Id. at
133.
Based on Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner has broadly
interpreted the term “SNS aggregator” as encompassing Borggaard’s server
101a, which includes social network application 116, feed module 107,
personalization module 109, content stream module 113, and profile/account
storage 111, as shown in Figure 1. Ans. 6—7 (citing Borggaard 28—30, 32,
Fig. 1); Final Act. 3.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with
Appellants’ Specification. Borggaard’s server 101a aggregates users’ data
from multiple social network services via its social network application 116,
feed module 107, and content stream module 113. See Borggaard 132
8
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
(“feed module 107 . . . retrieves a social information feed from one or more
social networks provided by the social network software/application 116
and the content stream module 113. For example, the feed module 107
collects a social information feed from one or more social networks''1
(emphases added)), 133. Thus, Borggaard’s server 101a is commensurate
with the broad description of “SNS aggregator” in Appellants’ Specification.
As further recognized by the Examiner, Borggaard’s SNS aggregator
has a plurality of account holders as recited in claim 1, as Borggaard’s SNS
aggregator/server 101a stores user accounts/profiles. Ans. 6 (citing
Borggaard 130). The Examiner further finds users’ accounts established
within Borggaard’s SNS aggregator 101a include data “identifying data
sharing relationship (e.g., common interest) between pairs of SNS
aggregator account holders having linked accounts (i.e., links defined by
social graph) within the SNS aggregator service.” Ans. 6 (citing Borggaard
30, 32); see also Final Act. 2—3. We agree.
Borggaard’s accounts are linked by a social graph reflecting data-
sharing relationships between users—such as users’ common features
including “friendship, family, work, an interest,” and “explicitly-defined
relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other
online users.” See Borggaard 132. Borggaard’s common features and
interests are commensurate with the broad description of “data-sharing
relationship” in Appellants’ Specification. See Borggaard 132; Spec. H 20,
26.4 Thus, Borggaard teaches “identifying data-sharing relationships
4 Appellants’ Specification provides “the term ‘relationship,’ as used herein,
refers to a data-sharing relationship established in a given SNS platform.
Some platforms may support several types of data-sharing relationships,
9
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
between pairs of account holders having linked accounts established within
the SNS aggregator service,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants’ argument that Borggaard’s ‘“social networks’ provided
by the social network software/application 116 are not SNS aggregators” is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. App. Br. 14. Rather, as the
Examiner finds, “[t]here is no functional or any meaningful distinction
between SNS account and aggregator service account in the present claims.”
Ans. 7.
Appellants additionally argue Borggaard does not teach the accessing
and assembling steps recited in claim 1 because “Borggaard does not teach
or suggest such steps between software/application 116 SNS accounts [of
server 101a] and software/application 105 SNS accounts” of third-party
server 103 (the external network-accessible SNS accounts). Reply Br. 4.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that Borggaard teaches the
accessing and assembling steps recited in claim 1. Ans. 8—9. In particular,
Borggaard’s SNS aggregator accesses external network-accessible SNS
accounts on third-party server 103, and assembles a data feed—such as a
social information feed or a personalized feed—using personalized data
from the external network-accessible SNS accounts. Ans. 8—9 (citing
Borggaard ^fl[ 32, 34 (“The social information feed is a feed that includes all
where the types and/or quantities of information shared among linked users
depends on the type of data-sharing relationships/'' Spec. 120 (emphases
added). Appellants’ Specification further describes an example of “User A
and User B . . . establishing] a data-sharing relationship in the SNS
aggregator service, e.g., if User A and User B mutually confirm that they are
friends, or contacts/'' Spec. 126 (emphases added).
10
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
actions any users have taken on the social network. . . and/or actions
indicated by the heterogeneous data sources’ '' (emphasis added)), 136
(“personalization module 109 [of server 101a] is a feed analyzer that. . .
analyzes the social information feed based on the profile information
describing the user ... to generate a personalized feed for the user”)); see
also Borggaard 133 (the data feed includes “data from a third-party server
103, a server 101 a . . . and a social graph” (emphasis added)). Additionally,
Borggaard’s data feed is assembled—by content stream module 113 and
personalization module 109 of SNS aggregator 101a—for an account holder
of SNS aggregator 101a, thereby teaching assembling a data feed for a first
account holder of the SNS aggregator, using data items retrieved from the
external network-accessible SNS accounts, as claimed.
Borggaard further teaches the external network-accessible SNS
accounts are associated with account holders of the SNS aggregator, as
claimed. Ans. 8—9. In particular, the accounts in Borggaard’s SNS
aggregator 101a and the external network-accessible SNS accounts in third
party server 103 may be associated with the same users. See Borggaard 130
(“storage device 111 [of server 101a] . . . stores data such as profile
information describing a user 125a, 125b, 125n” (emphasis added)), 137
(“the third party server 103 . . . stores personal information about the user
125a, 125b, 125n” (emphasis added)).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated
Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 12 and 22 for which
Appellants provide the same arguments, and dependent claims 5, 8—11, 14,
11
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
15, 18—21, and 23, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 10,
16, 19.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 2 based on Borggaard and Mitchell
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “establishing linked
accounts by storing, for each account holder, internal connection
relationships entered by the account holder into an SNS aggregator
interface.” App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds Borggaard’s SNS aggregator/server 101a
establishes linked accounts by storing internal connection relationships for
users/account holders in an SNS aggregator’s interface/storage 111. Ans. 9
(citing Borggaard 132); Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds internal
connection relationships are provided by Borggaard’s social graph mapping
users’ social network relationships. Ans. 9; Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue Borggaard “only refers to the social networks
provided by social network software/application 116” and “does not teach or
suggest establishing linked accounts by storing internal connection
relationships entered by an SNS aggregator account holder into an SNS
aggregator interface.” App. Br. 16 (citing Borggaard 132); Reply Br. 4.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded
Borggaard does not teach an SNS aggregator having account holders with
linked accounts. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Borggaard’s
social graph provides internal connection relationships—such as “explicitly-
defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with
other online users”—entered by users/account holders into the SNS
aggregator’s storage interface 111. See Borggaard 130 (“storage device 111
12
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
. . . stores data such as profile information describing a user 125a, 1256,
125n . . . the profile information is provided explicitly by the user 125a,
125b, 125«” (emphasis added)), 1 32. Thus, Borggaard teaches the claimed
storing internal connection relationships entered by an account holder into
an SNS aggregator interface.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 2.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 13, 24, and 25
based on Borggaard and Mitchell
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1, and further recite “an Open
Authentication Key corresponding to the external network-accessible SNS.”
App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). Claim 13, depending from claim 12, and
claims 24 and 25, depending from claim 22, recite similar limitations. App.
Br. 24, 27 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Mitchell’s paragraph 24
teaches and suggests an access token including an Open Authentication Key,
as claimed. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Mitchell 124).
Appellants argue Mitchell’s paragraph 24 “says nothing of Open
Authentication Keys.” App. Br. 17. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument, which does not address the Examiner’s findings regarding what
Mitchell would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. We
agree with the Examiner that an “open authentication key is [a] well known
protocol in the art for use to access SNS user data” and “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to utilize any known protocols including open authentication key in Mitchell
because it would have enabled” Mitchell’s access token authentication
13
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
technique. Ans. 9; see Mitchell 124. Appellants have not rebutted the
Examiner’s reasonable findings and conclusion.
For these reasons, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4, 13,
24, and 25.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6 and 16
based on Borggaard and Mitchell
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, Appellants argue
Borggaard does not teach or suggest:
identifying, from one or more of the external network-accessible
SNS accounts, the first account holder’s external connection
relationships with a third party, identifying a respective account
on the SNS aggregator for the third party and then establishing
and storing a new data-sharing relationship within the SNS
aggregator between the first account holder and the third party.
App. Br. 17—18; see also Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, “there is
nothing in Borggaard that discloses linking multiple feed module profiles
from a social graph stored for a single feed module profile.” Reply Br. 5.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that
Borggaard does not teach linked accounts in an SNS aggregator. We also
note Borggaard does not restrict the social graph to “a single feed module
profile” as Appellants argue (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added)); rather,
Borggaard teaches the social graph reflects a mapping of multiple users ’
profiles and how the users are related. See Borggaard 132.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Borggaard and Mitchell teaches or suggests identifying third party
connections, and establishing and storing new data-sharing relationships
14
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
within an SNS aggregator, as recited in claims 6 and 16. Ans. 9—10.
Particularly, Borggaard teaches or at least suggests establishing relationships
between a first user and third parties/other users in the SNS
aggregator/server 101a, through “relationships implied by social connections
with other online users” such as friends of the first user’s friends. Ans. 9—10
(citing Borggaard 132). Mitchell further teaches identifying third-party
connections for a first user in a social network system, and establishing and
storing new relationships between the first user and the third parties through
indirect connections “via one or more levels of connections (e.g., friends of
friends).” See Mitchell 111; Ans. 10. Appellants’ arguments do not address
the Examiner’s specific findings directed to the combination of Borggaard
and Mitchell. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
For these reasons, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and
16.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7 and 17
based on Borggaard and Mitchell
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Appellants argue Mitchell
“only describe[s] relationships generally and how a social network system
‘can generally model the relationships among groups of individuals’,” and
does not disclose “relationships stored in an SNS aggregator.” App. Br. 18.
Appellants also argue Borggaard does not teach establishing and storing
updated data-sharing relationships for account holders within an SNS
aggregator. Reply Br. 5.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that
Borggaard does not teach data-sharing relationships between account
15
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
holders with linked accounts in an SNS aggregator. We agree with the
Examiner that Borggaard teaches “storing current and new/updated
relationships between users within the SNS aggregator 101a” via the social
graph mapping users’ relationships and common features, thereby teaching
establishing and storing users’ updated data-sharing relationships in the SNS
aggregator, as claimed. Ans. 10 (citing Borggaard Tflf 30, 32).
Additionally, Mitchell teaches “scanning/reading users[’] routine
updates [in a social network service] wherein the scanning/reading is
triggered by a user action,” thereby teaching scanning an account holder’s
connection relationships in a social network service, as claimed. Ans. 10
(citing Mitchell ^fl[ 12—13). Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively
address the Examiner’s specific findings directed to the combination of
Borggaard and Mitchell.
For these reasons, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 7 and
17.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—25.
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).
16
Appeal 2016-003503
Application 13/597,473
AFFIRMED
17