Ex Parte Linden et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2011

11009732 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P 0 Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313- 1450
www uspto go".
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. I
111009,732 1211 012004 Gregory D. Linden AMAZON. SCP2C 1 3602
20995 7590 02/02/20 1 1
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
EXAMINER
2040 MAIN STREET ZARE, SCOTT A
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
r ARTUNIT 1 PAPERNUMBER 1
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
02/02/2011 ELECTRONIC
jcartee@ kmob.com
efiling @ kmob.com
eOAPilot @kmob.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04107)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte GREGORY D. LINDEN,
BRENT R. SMITH, and
NIDA K. ZADA
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 111009,732
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL'
1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory D. Linden, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. 5 134 of the final rejection of claims 25-40,42,43,45, and 46. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.^
THE INVENTION
The invention is a method "for monitoring activities of online users,
and for recommending items to users based on such activities."
Specification [0002].
Claims 25, 36, and 40, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
25. A computer-implemented method of
assisting users in locating items of interest during
browsing of an electronic catalog, the method
comprising:
recording, in a session record of a browsing
session of a user, identifiers of a plurality of
catalog items selected by the user for viewing in
the electronic catalog ("accessed items");
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed Dec. 2, 2008) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 24, 2009),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Jan. 26, 2009).
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
programmatically selecting a plurality of
additional items to recommend to the user based,
at least in part, on the plurality of accessed items
recorded in said session record; and
during the browsing session: (a) outputting
to the user a list of the accessed items and a list of
the additional items, (b) detecting de-selection by
the user of one or more of the accessed items from
the list of accessed items, and (c) responding to
said de-selection by generating, and outputting to
the user, a refined list of additional items which
reflects said de-selection, such that the user
interactively causes a set of session-based item
recommendations to be refined.
36. A computer-implemented method of assisting
users in locating items represented in an electronic
catalog, the method comprising:
recording a plurality of search queries
submitted by a user during a browsing session of
the electronic catalog:
programmatically selecting a set of items to
recommend to the user, such that a decision
whether to include a candidate item in said set of
items to recommend is based at least in part on
whether the candidate item matches more than one
of said plurality of search queries; and
outputting a representation of said set of
items for presentation to the user during said
browsing session.
40. A method of assisting users in locating items
that are arranged within a hierarchy of item
categories, said hierarchy having multiple levels,
the method comprising:
maintaining a record of a plurality of item
categories accessed by a user during a browsing
session, including a first item category and a
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
second item category that are located at the same
level of said hierarchy;
selecting a set of items to recommend to the
user based, at least in part, on said record, such
that a decision whether to include a candidate item
in said set of items to recommend is based at least
in part on whether the candidate item falls within
both the first item category and the second item
category;
outputting a representation of the set of
items for presentation to the user during the
browsing session; and
providing an option for the user to
individually deselect one or more of the plurality
of item categories from said representation and to
thereafter view a refined set of items that reflects
such de-selection.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability :
Talib US 200110044758 A1 Nov. 22,2001
Aggarwal US 6,356,879 B2 Mar. 12, 2002
Dunning US 200210082901 A1 Jun. 27,2002
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 25-39,45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Aggarwal and Dunning.
2. Claims 40,42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aggarwal, Dunning, and Talib.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claims 25-35, 45, and 46 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Aggarwal and Dunning. Specifically, the
major issue is whether the combination of Aggarwal and Dunning teaches
"(b) detecting de-selection by the user of one or more of the accessed items
from the list of accessed items, and (c) responding to said de-selection by
generating, and outputting to the user, a refined list of additional items
which reflects said de-selection,. . ." as recited in claim 25.
The second issue is whether claims 36-39 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) over Aggarwal and Dunning. Specifically, the major issue is
whether the combination teaches "that a decision whether to include a
candidate item in said set of items to recommend is based at least in part on
whether the candidate item matches more than one of said plurality of search
queries" as recited in claim 36.
The third issue is whether claims 40, 42, and 43 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Aggarwal, Dunning,
and Talib. Specifically, the major issue is whether the combination of
Aggarwal and Dunning teaches "providing an option for the user to
individually deselect one or more of the plurality of item categories from
said representation and to thereafter view a refined set of items that reflects
such de-selection" as recited in claim 40.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Znc. v.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Dunning's paragraph [0254] states:
The present invention is able to refine the
discovered relationships and user preferences as
often as desired. For example, user behavior may
be monitored after recommendations are made, so
that play logs can be updated based on the user's
selection of tracks, as well as the user's skipping
and/or repeating of tracks.
2. Dunning's paragraph [0108] states:
Play log 114 is a database that monitors and stores
information describing user behavior.
Specifically, the user's interaction with jukebox
103, including track selection, repeats, aborts and
skips, and the like, are recorded and stored in play
log 114. Log analysis module 11 3 analyzes play
log 114 in order to generate a profile of the user,
which is stored in the profile database 112. Profile
database 1 12 contains user-level profiles that
encode personal listening behavior of particular
users. Log analysis module 1 13 periodically
updates profile database 112 as new information
becomes available, so as to refine the user profile
over time.
3. Dunning' s paragraphs [O 1 1 11 and [O 1201 describes a
recommendation engine that takes as input the user profile from
the profile database 112 and makes track recommendations based
on observed behavior.
4. Dunning's paragraph [Olll] states: "Thus, engine 107 uses a
combination of explicit preferences and observed behavior to
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
provide personalized music recommendations at any desired level,
including for example tracks, artists, albums, genres, and the like."
5. Dunning discloses a "get music recommendations," which
activates music recommendations screen 2206A to provide
"recommendations based on observation of user behavior."
Dunning [0288].
6. Dunning states: "When the user accesses the suggestion page,
representative items are fetched and used to formulate
recommendations, using the relationship discovery techniques
described herein." Dunning [0208].
7. A portion of Dunning's Figure 22 B is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
Figure 22 B shows music recommendations screen 2206A, which
depicts a list of recommended tracks and a community
recommendations box with entry fields for artist name and album title.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 25-39, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S. C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aggarwal and Dunning.
Claims 25-35, 45, and 46
Claim 25 recites
during the browsing session: (a) outputting to the user a
list of the accessed items and a list of the additional
items, (b) detecting de-selection by the user of one or
more of the accessed items from the list of accessed
items, and (c) responding to said de-selection by
generating, and outputting to the user, a refined list of
additional items which reflects said de-selection, such
that the user interactively causes a set of session-based
item recommendations to be refined.
(Emphasis added.)
In the rejection the Examiner relies upon paragraph [0254] of
Dunning to teach this limitation and equates the user's skipping of tracks to
the claimed de-selection. Answer 5-6. The Appellants argue that Dunning
does not teach that in response to skipping a track the user interactively
causes the recommended tracks to be refined. App. Br. 8 and Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner cites paragraphs [O 1 1 11, [O 1201, and [0254] of Dunning to
teach this limitation and concludes: "Thus, any change or alteration to the
user profile or preferences (including a de-selection of a given track)
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
ultimately has an effect of immediately altering the play list (i.e., session-
based recommendations)." Answer 22-23.
We find that the Examiner's conclusion is not support by Dunning's
disclosures. While we agree with the Examiner that Dunning discloses
recording that a user skipped a track in the user profiles and that these user
profiles are used to generate recommendations of tracks (see FF 1-4), we
disagree with the Examiner that Dunning teaches that skipping a track has
the immediate effect of altering the session-based recommendations. We
find nothing in paragraphs [Ol 1 11, [0120], and [0254] that teaches that
immediately after a track is skipped refine track recommendations are
generated as the Examiner asserts.
Further, we note that Dunning does not disclose that in response to the
skipping of tracks a refined list of recommended tracks is outputted, such
that the user interactively causes the list to be refined. As the Appellants
point out (App. Br. 8), Dunning discloses a "get music recommendations,"
which activates music recommendations screen 2206A to provide
"recommendations based on observation of user behavior." FF 5. See also
FF 6. The list of recommendations which takes into account the previous
skipping of a track is generated in response to the user activating a music
recommendation screen.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection
of claim 25, and claims 24-35,45, and 46, dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aggarwal and Dunning.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
Claims 36-39
Claim 36 recites
programmatically selecting a set of items to recommend
to the user, such that a decision whether to include a
candidate item in said set of items to recommend is based
at least in part on whether the candidate item matches
more than one of said plurality of search queries.
(Emphasis added.) The Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether
paragraphs [0048], [0124], and [0143], and Figure 22B of Dunning teaches
this limitation. App. Br. 10-1 1, Reply Br. 5-6 and Answer 25-26.
Specifically, the Appellants argue that while Dunning does describe
selecting a set of items based on whether the item matches a single search
query, Dunning does not describe selecting the item based on whether the
item matches more than one user-submitted search query. App. Br. 10-1 1
and Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner specifically cites Figure 22 B of Dunning
as teaching multiple search queries and states: "Figure 22B of Dunning
clearly illustrates recommendations based on whether the candidate item
matches more than one of said plurality of search queries (e.g., artist name
and album title)." Answer 26.
We find that the cited portions of Dunning do not teach the limitation
at issue. We disagree with the Examiner's characterization of the "artist
name" as a separate search query form "album title." Answer 26. The artist
name and album title are possible elements of a single search query that is
used to select recommended items (see FF 7), but cannot reasonably be
considered plural separate search queries. Accordingly, we find that the
Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 36, and claims 37-39,
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Aggarwal and Dunning.
The rejection of claims 40, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S. C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aggarwal, Dunning, and Talib.
Claim 40 recites a step of "providing an option for the user to
individually deselect one or more of the plurality of item categories from
said representation and to thereafter view a refined set of items that reflects
such de-selection." The Appellants argue that Dunning does not "disclose or
suggest either the ability to deselect one or more 'item categories' accessed
during a browsing session, or the ability, to 'thereafter view a refined set of
items that reflects such de-selection. "' App. Br. 12- 13. The Appellants
argue that Dunning's teachings of skipping tracks (i.e. items) cannot be
applied to skipping categories. Reply Br. 6-7. As with claim 25 above the
Examiner cites Dunning's description of skipping track in paragraph [0254]
to teach this step. Answer 16-17. The Examiner also found that Talib
disclosed "selecting items to be recommended based on whether an item
falls within both a first and second category." Answer 28. However, the
Examiner does not provide any explanation of how one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led by Dunning's teaching of skipping tracks (i.e.
items) in a list (FF 1-4) would lead to deselecting a category, but merely
concludes that it would be obvious. Answer 28. "[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Znt'l Co.
Appeal 2009-012176
Application 1 11009,732
v. Telejlex, 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness. The Appellants have overcome the rejection of
claims 40, and claims 42 and 43, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aggarwal, Dunning and Talib.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25-40,42,43,45, and
46 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
REVERSED
mev
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE CA 926 14