Ex Parte Koike et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

11324272 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

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.
11/324,272 01/04/2006 Hiroyuki Koike 09812.0595 6954
22852 7590 06/17/2013
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
ORTIZ DITREN, BELIX M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HIROYUKI KOIKE
and TOMOHARU OHSUMI
____________________

Appeal 2010-011655
Application 11/324,272
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011655
Application 11/324,272

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 10-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 10 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
10. A method comprising:
storing item characteristic vectors and a user preference vector,
the item characteristic vectors describing items;
determining the item characteristic vectors that are similar to
the user preference vector, the similar item characteristic vectors
describing items that are recommended;
determining, by a processor, a common attribute from the
similar item characteristic vectors and the user preference vector,
wherein the common attribute identifies a common recommendation
reason of the recommended items; and
providing the common recommendation reason with the
recommended items for display.

Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 10-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2005/0165782 A1).
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
10-27 because Yamamoto fails to describe determining a common
recommendation reason. (Reply Br. 2).

Appeal 2010-011655
Application 11/324,272

3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10-27 as being anticipated
because Yamamoto fails to disclose the argued determining limitation?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above specifically cited contention.
The Examiner has erred in finding that Yamamoto anticipates the claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10-27 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) On this record, claims 10-27 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc