Ex Parte Kisel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

12559011 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
12/559,011 09/14/2009 Andrey Kisel LUTZ 201065US01 7646
48116 7590 12/28/2016
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREY KISEL and DAVE CECIL ROBINSON
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1,3,4, and 6—12, which are the only pending claims.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.3
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (App. Br.
1.)
2 Claims 2 and 5 are canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 14, 2009 (“Spec.”), the
Non-Final Office Action mailed June 30, 2014 (“Non-Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Mar. 19, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Sept. 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 4, 2015
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to providing recommendations for digital
assets, such as video or audio data, to a user terminal via a network. (Spec.
2—3 — Summary of the Invention.) Recommendations are generated for a
particular user terminal by favoring assets selected by other user terminals
having related user profiles. (Id.) Assets most likely to be requested by the
user terminal are stored in a server. (Id.) Claim 1, reproduced below with
argued limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing digital assets in a network comprising
a central controller connected to a plurality of servers, each asset
comprising at least one of video data and audio data, each server
serving a group of user terminals by storing a respective selected
set of the assets and providing an asset from the selected set to a
user terminal on request, the method comprising:
for at least one of the servers selecting which assets to
store by the steps of:
for individual user terminals of the group of user terminals
served by the server, receiving a recommendation from a
recommendation engine for a particular individual user terminal
as to a set of assets predicted as most likely to be desired by the
particular individual user terminal, said recommendations being
adapted to the individual users of said individual user terminals,
in which generation of the recommendation received for a
particular individual user terminal includes favoring assets
selected by other user terminals having related user profiles',
determining from the recommendations a list of the most
likely to be requested assets for the group of user terminals,
wherein said determining includes incrementing a count
associated with the asset on a list of assets upon the asset being
recommended for a user terminal, then reordering the list to be
in a decreasing order of counts so as to provide the list of the
most likely to be requested assets; and
updating the assets stored in the server so that the listed
most likely to be requested assets for the group of user terminals
are stored in the server.
2
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
(App. Br. 9—10 — Claims App’x.)
REJECTION
Claims 1,3,4, and 6—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Toebes (US 8,380,562 B2, Feb. 19, 2013) and Jacobi (US
6,064,980, May 16, 2000). (Non-Final Act. 3—6.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 12
Argument concerning recommendation for a particular individual user
terminal favoring assets selected by other user terminals having related user
profiles.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite the limitation of “recommendations being
adapted to the individual users of said individual user terminals, in which
generation of the recommendation received for a particular individual user
terminal includes favoring assets selected by other user terminals having
related user profiles.” (App. Br. 9, 12.) Appellants argue this feature is not
disclosed in the combination of Toebes and Jacobi. (App. Br. 5—7.)
Specifically, Appellants argue that Toebes does not disclose asset
recommendations based on the selection of other users “having related user
profiles.” (App. Br. 6.) To the contrary, the Examiner finds this feature
taught by Toebes. (Ans. 6—7.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding.
Toebes teaches determining network items 122 for each of closest
users 118 to a particular user “PI” 16 based on affinity values 54 exhibited
by respective users 118 according to their respective user selection
preferences. (Toebes 16:52—17:4, Figs. 3 and 8.) Toebes discloses the user
selection preferences are included in user profiles. (Toebes 17:4—12.)
3
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
“Network items” are defined in Toebes to include online content including
videos, e-books, articles, etc. (Toebes 6:11—27.) These network items 122
can be filtered according to preferences specified in user profile 32, as well
as age or content restrictions, schedule preferences or browsing history (i.e.,
interests), of the particular user 16. (Toebes 17:4—12.) Similarly, the user
profiles described in Appellants’ Specification include parameters such as
age and interests. (Spec. 3.) Toebes discloses these filtered
recommendations are provided to device 14 of user 16. (Toebes 17:12—32.)
As these recommendations favor assets selected by other user terminals
having related user profiles, we agree with the Examiner that Toebes teaches
the claimed feature.
Appellants also argue Toebes discloses no comparison of any user
profiles or any rational or logical relationship established between user
profiles in order to determine or influence recommendations. (App. Br. 6—
7.) However, there is no limitation appearing in the claims concerning any
comparison of user profiles of the particular user and other users, or the
terminals thereof. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Updating assets stored in a server
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 both refer to updating
the assets stored in a server so that those assets most likely to be requested
by the group of user terminals served by the server are stored in the server.
(App. Br. 7.) According to Appellants, the cited portions of Toebes make no
mention of storing or updating stored assets on a server serving a group of
user terminals. (Id.) The Examiner finds this feature taught by Toebes.
(Ans. 4, 7-8 citing Toebes 6:49-67, 7:65-8:12, 9:1-9, 15:32-16:37, 18:26-
32.) We agree with the Examiner.
4
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
Toebes discloses that a new network item determined most likely to
be preferred by identified user 16 can be made available to the user by server
18 retrieving the recommended content from the content or service providers
30. (Toebes 6:60—67.) Server 18 is connected to a group of user devices 14.
(Toebes 6:52, Figure 1 [14a],[14b],[14c],[14d].) Accordingly, Toebes
teaches updating server 18 with content most likely to be requested by a
group of user devices 14. A person of ordinary skill would have understood
that performing this content retrieval multiple times is equivalent to
updating, collectively, a plurality of assets. Thus, Toebes teaches or
suggests the claimed feature.
Remaining claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims and therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously
discussed. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Harmless Error
Appellants argue the Examiner mistakenly refers to an earlier appeal
in indicating that prosecution has been reopened. (Reply Br. 2—3.) We agree
with Appellants but find the error to be harmless. Accordingly, we hereby
render our Decision.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,4, and 6—12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
5
Appeal 2016-001522
Application 12/559,011
AFFIRMED
6