Ex Parte Klein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13729463 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
13/729,463 12/28/2012 DAVID E. KLEIN CM15653 6470
22917 7590 12/13/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
W OLDEMARIAM, AYELE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
U S Adocketing @ motorolasolutions. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. KLEIN, KENNETH W. DOUROS,
CRAIG A. JANSSEN, and STEVEN J. NO WLAN
Appeal 2015-006109
Application 13/729,463
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decisions rejecting 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 Motorola Solutions,
Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006109
Application 13/729,463
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to aggregating and analyzing social
media content. Spec. 1:4—5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of disputed subject matter and reproduced
below.
1. A method for analyzing social media, the method
comprising:
assembling a cluster of a plurality of social media
contents, wherein each social media content of the plurality of
social media contents has one or more associated attributes;
determining weights in association with the social media
contents included in the cluster;
determining a reliability level of the cluster based on the
determined weights; and
dispatching personnel to a location based on the social
media content and the reliability level of the cluster.
The Rejections
Claims 1—6, 10-16, and 20 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
as obvious over Van Hoff (US 2013/0097186 Al; Apr. 18, 2013) and Neff
(US 2013/0086163 Al; Apr. 4, 2013).
Claims 7—9 and 17—19 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
obvious over Van Hoff, Neff, and Mathur (US 2010/0287033 Al; Nov. 11,
2010).
2
Appeal 2015-006109
Application 13/729,463
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Van Hoff fails to teach or suggest the claimed
“determining a reliability level” because the cited disclosure of Van Hoff
instead teaches determining a relevance level. Br. 4. According to
Appellants, “‘reliability’ does not mean ‘relevance.’” Id. at 6. In support of
this argument, Appellants cite the following dictionary definitions:
“Reliability” is defined by www.dictionary.com to mean “the
ability to be relied on or depended on, as for accuracy, honesty,
or achievement.” In contrast, the term “relevant” is defined by
www.dictionary.com to mean “bearing upon or connected with
the matter in hand.”
Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted).
We have considered Appellants’ argument in the Appeal Brief as well
as the Examiner’s Answer thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument for at least the following reasons.
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we find Appellants have
not defined explicitly the term “reliability level” in the claim or the
Specification. We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim
terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where, as here, the Specification
does not explicitly define a term, the term should be given its ordinary
meaning. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Morris,
111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note the Specification provides
examples of determining correct information from erroneous or misleading
information by attributing scores to content based on the identity of the
3
Appeal 2015-006109
Application 13/729,463
content creator, location of the creator, time the content was created and
posted, etc. See Spec. 1:10-12, 8:12—27, 9:27—10:25.
The Examiner finds Van Hoff’s scoring of social media content
according to relevance factors meets the determining a reliability level.
Final Act. 3 (citing Van Hoff, 135); Ans. 8—9. The method of Van Hoff
includes attributing scores to content based on relevance factors that are
similar to those described in Appellants’ Specification for determining the
claimed reliability level, including the identity of the content creator, time
the content was created and posted, the “quality” and “completeness” of the
content, etc. Van Hoff, H 35, 38-43. Appellants fail to explain
persuasively in the record before us why one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand Van Hoff’s determination of relevance based on a
score of weighted factors as suggesting, at minimum, the claimed
determination of a reliability level based on assigned weights. We note the
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of illustrative claim 1. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning
claims 2—20. See App. Br. 4—9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2—20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—20.
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
4