Ex Parte Macadaan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201512018622 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2015) 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. 12/018,622 01/23/2008 Mike Macadaan 10587.0753-00000 8454 100692 7590 06/22/2015 AOL Inc./Finnegan 901 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2015 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 MIKE MACADAAN, DAVID J. LIU, JAMES D. SIMMONS JR., WENDY CHARLENE PERLSON, WILLIAM G. WETHERELL, and ROB METZGER ____________ Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AOL, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to using image clouds to identify user interests related to internet content and presenting personalized internet content based on the user’s interests. See Abstract; see also Spec. ¶¶ 2, 25. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. In a computer system comprising a user interface configured to display content, a method for personalizing content for a particular user, the method comprising: displaying an image cloud having a plurality of category images, each category image being associated with a different category, the plurality of category images being grouped and displayed adjacent or in close proximity with each other in one predefined area to minimize content between the plurality of content images so as to minimize navigation methods required to locate the plurality of category images; receiving input from a user selecting at least one category image on the image cloud; accessing a plurality of content feeds related to the category of the at least one category image selected by the user; accessing a plurality of content images related to the category of the at least one category image selected by the user; displaying the plurality of content feeds along with the plurality of content images; receiving input from a user selecting at least one content feed or at least one content image; and rendering content related to the selected content feed or content image. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–9, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blanchard et al. (US 2008/0072145 Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 3 A1, Sept. 19, 2006) (hereinafter “Blanchard”) and Helfman et al., Image Representation for Accessing and Organizing Web Information, 2001 (hereinafter “Helfman”). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blanchard, Helfman, and Francis et al. (US 2008/0201645 A1, Feb. 21, 2007) (hereinafter “Francis”). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blanchard, Helfman, and Marshall Kirkpatrick, I Reader Uses Semantic Analysis to Summarize Linked Pages, TechCrunch, Feb. 20, 2007. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blanchard, Helfman, and Tanaka (US 2002/0093680 A1, July 18, 2002). ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Blanchard and Helfman teach or suggest “displaying an image cloud having a plurality of category images,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Blanchard and Helfman teach or suggest “displaying the plurality of content feeds along with the plurality of content images,” as recited in claim 1? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding Blanchard and Helfman teach or suggest “each of the plurality of content images are linked to one of the plurality of content feeds such that, when the user selects either one of the linked content feed or linked content image, the same content is displayed related to the selected content feed or content image,” as recited in claim 5? Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 4 4. Did the Examiner err in finding Blanchard, Helfman and Eves teach or suggest “identifying one or more features and one or more interests associated with the selected category image and using the identified features and/or interests to develop a user profile for the user,” as recited in claim 7? 5. Did the Examiner err finding Blanchard, Helfman and Tanaka teach or suggest “determining the plurality of category images to include in the image cloud based on prior expressions of approval made by the user, the prior expressions of approval comprising selections of approval icons individually linked to each category image,” as recited in claim 15? ANALYSIS Issues 1 and 2 The Examiner finds that the combination of Blanchard and Helfman disclose “displaying an image cloud having a plurality of category images,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5–7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Blanchard discloses a tag or text cloud, but not an image cloud. Final Act. 5. Relying on Helfman’s teachings, the Examiner finds that images can provide an alternative and complimentary way to represent information in place of text. Final Act. 4 (citing Helfman § 1.2). Given Helfman’s teachings, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to substitute images in place of text in Blanchard’s tag cloud, resulting in an image cloud. Final Act. 6–7. Appellants do not dispute that Blanchard discloses a tag cloud. See id. Nor do Appellants dispute Helfman teaches that images provide an alternative way to represent information. See id. Appellants instead argue one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Blanchard Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 5 with Helfman because “Blanchard never contemplated, and indeed, teaches away from a tag cloud comprised of images.” App. Br. 11. This is because, as Appellants argue, Blanchard’s key functionality is an “interactive legend” that allows the user to customize the tag cloud by changing the font size and opacity and adding highlights and underscores to certain tags. Reply Br. 2. Because one cannot customize images in the ways disclosed by Blanchard (e.g., one cannot change the font size of images), Appellants argue replacing tags with images would render Blanchard unfit for its intended purpose. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, to justify combining Blanchard with Helfman, it is not necessary to show that images be substituted for tags blindly without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.”) Second, we agree with the Examiner that combining Blanchard with Helfman would not disable the underlying functionality of Blanchard. Ans. 14. For example, Blanchard teaches that the tag cloud can be customized, not just by changes in font size or color, but also by transparency/opacity, background color, border, 3D depth, or shadowing. Blanchard ¶ 19. Thus, many of the customizations taught by Blanchard could be applied to images just as well as they could to text, without rendering Blanchard unfit for its intended purpose. Appellants next argue “Blanchard and Helfman do not teach or suggest ‘displaying [a] plurality of content feeds along with [a] plurality of Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 6 content images,’ as recited in independent claim 1.” App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue “neither Blanchard nor Helfman teaches displaying both a collection of content feeds together with a collection of images, both the content feeds and the collection of images being based on a selected category.” Id. We disagree with Appellants’ argument. As found by the Examiner, Figure 4 of Helfman teaches or suggests displaying a content feed (search results) along with content images (thumbnail images). Ans. 15. Appellants do not address Examiner’s findings with respect to Figure 4 of Helfman. See Reply Br. 3. For these reasons we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 and dependent claims 2–4, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 16, for which the Appellants make no separate arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 13–17. Issue 3 Claim 5 recites “each of the plurality of content images are linked to one of the plurality of content feeds such that when the user selects either one of the linked content feed or linked content image, the same content is displayed related to the selected content feed or content image.” The Examiner finds Figure 4 of Helfman discloses displaying search results (content feeds) and thumbnail images (content images) corresponding to each search result. See Ans. 16; see also Helfman, Fig. 4. According to the Examiner, “selection of the URL link of the search result or selection of the thumbnail associated with the search result [in Figure 4 of Helfman] would direct the user to the same web page.” Ans. 16. The Examiner concludes Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 7 Helfman’s disclosure, in combination with Blanchard, teaches or suggests a plurality of images linked to a plurality of content feeds such that when one of the linked content feeds or content images is selected, the same content is displayed. Id. Appellants argue that neither Blanchard nor Helfman “teach or suggest a selectable content feed or content image that is linked to display the same content,” but do not address Examiner’s findings with respect to Figure 4 of Helfman. See App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Helfman’s thumbnails and associated search results disclose a plurality of content images linked to a plurality of content feeds that, when selected, direct the user to the same web content. Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s findings with respect to Figure 4 of Helfman. We are therefore not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 and claim 11 which were argued as a group. Issue 4 Claim 7 requires “identifying one or more features and one or more interests associated with the selected category image and using the identified features and/or interests to develop a user profile for the user.” Acknowledging that Blanchard and Helfman do not teach identifying features and interests associated with category images to develop a user profile, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the “use of monitoring user selections on the web to generate a user profile is well known in the art of search engine and result personalization to increase the relevancy of search Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 8 results provided to the user.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner provides support for the Official Notice in Eves. Appellants argue that Eves “fails to teach that a user profile can be developed based on the selection of the claimed ‘category image’ or ‘initial image.’” App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because it does not address the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner relied upon Blanchard and Helfman, not Eves, as teaching or suggesting a “category image” or an “initial image.” Ans. 17. Eves was relied upon as teaching developing user profiles based on user selections. Id. Thus, the proposed combination of Blanchard, Helfman and Eves teaches or suggests developing a user profile based on selections of category images. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 and claims 8 and 13 which were argued as a group. Issue 5 Claim 15 recites “determining the plurality of category images to include in the image cloud based on prior expressions of approval made by the user, the prior expressions of approval comprising selections of approval icons individually linked to each category image.” The Examiner finds Blanchard and Helfman teach or suggest an image cloud where the images can be updated. Ans. 18. The Examiner relies on Tanaka as disclosing the use of approval icons, in the form of checkboxes linked to images, to select images to be included in a process. Ans. 18–19; see also Final Act. 12. Appellants argue Tanaka does not disclose “‘approving’ or ‘disapproving’ of the images but merely selecting the images.” App. Br. 17. According to Appellants’ interpretation, “approval” or “disapproval” Appeal 2012-010779 Application 12/018,622 9 corresponds to whether a user “likes” or “dislikes” a certain image. Reply Br. 7. Appellants argue that the checkboxes of Tanaka do not allow the user to “like” or “dislike” the image and therefore do not teach or suggest the “approval icon,” recited in claim 15. Id. We unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the checkboxes of Tanaka allow the user to select which images to print. By selecting some images, the user “approves” those images to be included for further processing. Thus, we agree that the checkboxes of Tanaka teach or suggest approval icons, the selection of which expresses approval by the user. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 and claim 17 which were argued as a group. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation