Ex Parte Lamere et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201612338585 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/338,585 12/18/2008 Paul B. Lamere 6000-44100 5684 58467 7590 MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767 12/23/2016 EXAMINER LO, ANN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg @ gmail .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL B. LAMERE, STEPHEN J. GREEN, JEFFREY H. ALEXANDER, FRANCOIS MAILLET, and DOUGLAS ECK Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON FENICK, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and apparatus for generating recommendations from descriptive information collected and extracted from one or more sources (Abstract). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for generating recommendations, comprising: displaying a tag cloud to a user interface, the tag cloud comprising one or more tags each specifying a descriptive word or phrase, wherein the displayed cloud graphically or textually illustrates that a weight is associated with each tag that indicates relative importance of the respective tag in the tag cloud; displaying, to the user interface, a list of recommended items of content from a collection of items of content; subsequent to displaying the tag cloud and the list of recommended items, receiving, via the user interface, interactive input to the displayed tag cloud to make one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud that add one or more tags, delete one or more tags, or change a weight of one or more tags in the displayed tag cloud; in response to the interactive input, altering an appearance of the displayed tag cloud according to the one or more modifications, wherein the altered appearance of the tag cloud reflects the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud according to the interactive input; in response to each of the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud: 2 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 determining a similarity value for each item of content in the collection of items of content with respect to the displayed modified tag cloud, wherein each item of content in the collection is associated with its own respective tag cloud, each respective tag cloud comprising one or more respective tags, each respective tag specifying a descriptive word or phrase related to the respective item of content associated with the respective tag cloud, and wherein the respective similarity value for each respective item of content in the collection of items of content indicates a strength of similarity of the tags of the respective tag cloud for the respective item of content to the one or more weighted tags in the displayed modified tag cloud that was modified according to the interactive input via the user interface; and updating the displayed list of recommended items of content according to a subset of the items of content from the collection for which the determined similarity value with respect to the modified tag cloud is above a specified threshold. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on REFERENCES appeal is: Forrest Park Majko US 2006/0284873 A1 Dec. 21, 2006 US 2009/0132526 A1 May 21, 2009 US 2009/0182727 A1 July 16, 2009 3 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 REJECTIONS1 Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Majko (Final Act. 4—13). Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park, Majko, and Forrest (Final Act. 14—15). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and20 Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1—3, 5—10, 12— 17, 19, and 20, is not obvious over Park and Majko (App. Br. 6).2 The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1: Does the combination of Park and Majko teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious: subsequent to displaying the tag cloud and the list of recommended items, receiving, via the user interface, interactive input to the displayed tag cloud to make one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud that add one or more tags, delete one or more tags, or change a weight of one or more tags in the displayed tag cloud; in response to the interactive input, altering an appearance of the displayed tag cloud according to the one or more modifications, 1 Although the Final Action includes a heading and quote of the code for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Final Act. 3), the Examiner indicates this was an inadvertent inclusion of a heading (Ans. 2). As such, we consider any alleged rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 withdrawn. 2 Rather than repeat the arguments in their entirety here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action and Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2016). 4 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 wherein the altered appearance of the tag cloud reflects the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud according to the interactive input, as recited in claim 1 ? Issue 2: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings and suggestions of Park and Majko? Issue 3: Does the combination of Park and Majko teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “generating the respective tag cloud for each item in the collection of items,” as recited in claim 2? Issue 4: Does the combination of Park and Majko teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “weighting function applied to all of the tags associated with all of the items in the collection,” as recited in claim 3? Issue 5: Does the combination of Park and Majko teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “wherein the interactive input includes user input adjusting the weight of one or more tags in the tag cloud,” as recited in claim 7? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 8, and 15 Appellants argue “the order of events in the reference are opposite from the order claimed” (App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants assert claim 1 requires a particular order: receiving interactive input to the displayed tag cloud, altering an appearance of the displayed tag cloud, and updating the displayed list of recommended items {id. at 7). According to Appellants, Majko describes “the new tag cloud is generated subsequent to the 5 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 generation of the search results” which is opposite of the claimed order (id.). In Majko, Appellants argue, a user selects a word in the tag which starts a search query to find a new set of relevant webpages and then weight the importance of each word encountered while searching (id. at 8). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Majko teaches a tag cloud has assigned words and a list of webpages (items) (Ans. 4; Majko 1 55). A user may choose to focus on a word, such as President, presented in a tag cloud (Majko 156). The user may choose any of the words in the tag cloud to focus search results (interactive input) (id.). Thus, Majko teaches: subsequent to displaying the tag cloud and the list of recommended items, receiving, via the user interface, interactive input to the displayed tag cloud to make one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud that add one or more tags, delete one or more tags, or change a weight of one or more tags in the displayed tag cloud, as recited in claim 1. More specifically, “[i]n this example, the user’s decisions to focus on the word ‘President’ resulted in some new words in the tag cloud” (id.). Accordingly, Majko teaches the interactive input to the displayed tag cloud modifies the displayed tag cloud to add one or more tags. In Majko’s example of a user focusing on the word “President,” each of the words in the tag cloud are portrayed “according to a score/weight, wherein the higher the word’s score, the more important or predominate the word appears in the tag cloud” (Majko 155). Appellants next argue Majko describes generating an entirely new tag cloud when certain words are weighted higher by the user, not altering an appearance of the tag cloud that 6 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 was modified via interactive input (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As the Examiner finds, Majko teaches the tag cloud displays words “according to a score/weight, wherein the higher the word’s score, the more important or predominate the word appears in the tag cloud” (Majko 1 55). Appellants focus their argument on Majko creating “an entirely new tag cloud” (Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded Majko’s description of a new tag cloud fails to teach the recited “altering an appearance of the displayed tag cloud,” as recited. Appellants’ argument that Figure 8 includes new words (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive as claim 1 recites “modifications to the displayed tag cloud that add one or more tags.” Indeed, although Majko may label the tag cloud as a “new” tag cloud, we are not persuaded this fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, altering the appearance of the displayed tag cloud. Thus, we are not persuaded Majko’s adding new words to the tag cloud (Majko 155) fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious in response to the interactive input, altering an appearance of the displayed tag cloud according to the one or more modifications, wherein the altered appearance of the tag cloud reflects the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud according to the interactive input, as recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue Park does not alter appearance of the displayed tag cloud according to the one or more modification to the tag cloud; rather, Appellants contend, Park teaches displaying recommendations based on similarities between users and more specifically, recommendations made rely on tag clouds of the user which cannot be modified by user input (App. Br. 10). However, the Examiner is relying on Majko as teaching 7 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 altering the appearance of a displayed tag cloud and Park for determining a similarity value (Final Act. 10). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as Appellants are arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references {In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Appellants contend, in contrast to the claimed invention which requires an appearance of the tag cloud being altered prior to updating the list of recommended items, Majko describes selection of a word in the tag cloud results in a new list of webpages (App. Br. 7). More specifically, Appellants contend the new tag cloud of Majko, is generated subsequent to generation of the search results—the opposite order of the claimed invention {id.). The Examiner, however, relies on Park as teaching “in response to each of the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud: determining a similarity value. . . and updating the displayed list” (Final Act. 5—7). Appellants’ arguments are directed at Majko individually, whereas the Examiner has relied on the combination of Park and Majko to teach the disputed limitations. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Appellants argue the Examiner’s combination of Park and Majko combines various features of a user tag cloud with a content tag cloud into a single tag cloud (App. Br. 12). However, Appellants contend, combining a content tag cloud with a user tag cloud into a single tag cloud would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Park (id. ). Further, according to Appellants, the user tag cloud of Park is not modifiable {id.). 8 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 Appellants have not identified what Park’s principle of operation is and how that would be changed. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Specifically, we are not persuaded using Majko’s teachings with Park’s teaching of determining similarities using tag clouds would have altered Park’s principle of operation. Appellants further argue because Park’s user tag clouds are built from the content tag clouds and because the user tag clouds are compared to other tag clouds to make content recommendations, the user and content tag clouds of Park would have to be combined to teach the claimed tag cloud, and this combination would fundamentally change Park’s principle of operation (App. Br. 12). According to Appellants, Park does not perform similarity comparison “in response to each of the one or more modifications to the displayed tag cloud” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner finds Park teaches computing a similarity between the target user and other users based on user tag clouds (Ans. 9). The Examiner further relies on Park’s teaching that a user may modify their tag cloud (Ans. 11; Park 137). Park additionally teaches their invention “(a) generates and updates a tag cloud of a user” and “(b) measure similarities between users” (Park 165). Thus, Park teaches or suggests in response to modification to the displayed tag cloud (tag cloud of a user), “determining a similarity value for each item of content in the collection of items of content with respect to the displayed modified tag cloud,” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we determine Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us using Majko’s teachings with Park’s teachings would have changed Park’s principle of operation. It follows, we are not 9 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Majko and Park. We further note “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results” (KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” {id. at 415, 417). Here, we are not persuaded combining the teachings and suggestions of Park and Majko is more than the combination of familiar elements according to known methods. Moreover, Appellants have presented no evidence that combining the teachings and suggestions of Park and Majko would not have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan such as by presenting evidence or argument that combining the teaching and suggestions to achieve the present invention would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art” {Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-19)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Park and Majko teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 were not separately argued; rather, the arguments set forth for claim 1 were relied upon (App. Br. 14). These claims fall with claim 1. 10 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 Claims 2, 9, and 16 Appellants contend Park fails to teach “generating the respective tag cloud for each item in the collection of items” because Park describes a user tag cloud that accumulates tags of content based on a particular user’s use of the content (App. Br. 15). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments; rather, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning (Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 12—14; Park 121). Indeed, Park teaches the tag clouds assigned to the contents are created by users (see, e.g., Park 126). Appellants further argue in Park, a user assigns tag clouds to the contents instead of a computer doing the assigning, in Park; therefore, Park does not teach a computer-implemented method, as recited (App. Br. 15). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The claimed method does not prohibit user interaction recited in claim 1 and indeed, Appellants indicate the interactive input is performed by a user (see, e.g., App. Br. 3). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Claims 9 and 16 are argued based on the arguments set forth with respect to claim 2; therefore, these claims fall with claim 2. Claims 3, 10, and 17 Appellants argue Park describes an accumulated frequency associated with a user, but does not teach the recited “weighting function applied to all of the tags associated with all of the items in the collection,” as recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 16). Appellants further contend Park teaches the user assigns tags to the content, and the frequency of tags of used content is 11 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 accumulated by the user tag cloud generating module and thus, Park does not teach a weighting function is applied to all the tags (Reply Br. 16). Therefore, according to Appellants, any content not used by a user would not have tags included in the accumulated frequency {id. at 16—17). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Park teaches the user tag cloud generating module accumulates the frequency of each tag constructed from contents used by a user (Park 133). Park teaches the content tag cloud database stores frequencies of tags assigned to each content by the users and updates it when another user uses the content and assigns a tag {id. H 26, 51, claim 1). The frequencies of each tag constructed from contents are thus accumulated on contents used by a user {id. 133). Further, Park teaches the process “is repeatedly performed on all contents used by all users to construct tag clouds and content usage lists” {id. 1 52). Appellants do not show that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a collection of items of content” (the antecedent basis in claim 1 of the “collection” of claim 3) requires the collection of items to include items not used by users, which therefore would not have an accumulated tag frequency. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding and reasoning. Claims 10 and 17 are argued based on the arguments set forth with respect to claim 3; therefore, these claims fall with claim 3. Claim 7 Appellants argue the cited references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the interactive input includes user input adjusting the weight of one or more tags in the tag cloud,” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 17). According to 12 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 Appellants, Park describes an interface that allows user to assign tags to content, but does not teach input to adjust the weight of one or more tags in the tag cloud (id.). Moreover, Appellants argue the claim requires a user tag cloud generating module and not user input (id. at 17—18). Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. The Examiner relies on teachings and suggestions of Park and Majko (Ans. 16—17). We determine Park teaches a user may assign tags to content (Ans. 16; Park 133; Reply Br. 13). Majko teaches tag clouds may be created to graphically present search results to a user, by varying the size, color, font, location, etc. of words within the tag cloud (Majko 149). Majko further teaches “[i]n addition to variations in the appearance of a tag cloud,... the number of words displayed in the tag cloud may be increased or decreased by ... a user” (id.). The Examiner has not explained with specificity how the combination teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the recited “wherein the interactive input includes user input adjusting the weight of one or more tags in the tag cloud.” Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has not shown the combination of Park and Majko teaches or suggests the limitation as recited in claim 7. Remaining Dependent Claims Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 5, 6, 12—14, 19, and 20. Thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Park and Majko. 13 Appeal 2016-001818 Application 12/338,585 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4, 11, and 18 Appellants did not separately argue dependent claims 4, 11, and 18. For the reasons set forth above, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Park, Majko, and Forrest. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Majko is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park, Majko, and Forrest is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Majko is reversed. 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. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation