Ex Parte Narayanan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

14684552 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/684,552 04/13/2015
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
06/04/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Srinivas P. Narayanan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
26295-28631/US 1427
EXAMINER
MENDA YE, KIDEST H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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):
ptoc@fenwick.com
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteSRINIVAS P. NARAYANAN,
DEVIN JAMES NAQUIN, and
JUSTIN ALEXANDER SHAFFER
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. § 134( a) from a rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to incorporating external event information
into a social networking system. (Spec. ,r 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request from a user device for a web page at a
web server, wherein the web page is within a third-party
domain of a third-party website that is different from a social
networking domain of a social networking system;
providing, to the user device, a markup language
document for the web page, the markup language document
including instructions that, when executed by a processor of the
user device, cause the user device to:
create a frame for an action button associated with
the social networking system within the web page for
presentation on the user device;
receive, from the social networking system,
content for displaying the action button; and
provide the content for the action button for
display with the web page on the user device, the action
button configured for receiving a user input to cause a
calendar event described on the web page to be generated
within the social network domain of the social
networking system;
receiving from the user device a user input to the action
button; and
1 Appellants indicate that Facebook, Inc. is the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
responsive to receiving the user input, providing to the
social networking system information for the calendar event
described on the web page from the markup language document
associated with the web page and an identification of a user
associated with the user device for generating an event object
for the calendar event in the social networking system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lubeck
Kendall et al.
Truonget al.
Kirkham et al.
US 2008/0098087 Al
US 2009/0182589 Al
US 2012/0290375 Al
US 2015/0170045 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 24, 2008
July 16, 2009
Nov. 15, 2012
June 18, 2015
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S. C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kendall in view of Lubeck and further
in view of Truong.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 standrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
unpatentable over Kendall, Lubeck, and Truong further in view of Kirkham.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 13, Appellants present
arguments to the claims together. (See App. Br. 7-11.) We select
independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim because claims 7 and 13 contain
similar claim language. (See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv) (2016).) We address
Appellants' arguments with respect to illustrative claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
Appellants contend that
a combination of Kendall, Lubeck, and Truong is a social
networking system that can collect information about users'
actions on the social networking system and third-party websites
and generate advertisements based on the collected information
For example, this combination discloses where a user viewing a
third-party website of a local winery on the user's smartphone
clicks a "buy" button on the third-party website to purchase a
bottle of wine from the third-party website. Kendall, ,r [0086].
The third-party website communicates the[] information about
the purchase to the social networking system. Kendall, ,r [0093].
In response to receiving the information about the purchase, the
social networking system generates an advertisement promoting
a wine tasting event at the local winery and displays the
advertisement on the user's smartphone. Accordingly, the social
networking system, in this example, can identify other local users
(e.g., connected to the user on the social networking system) who
are also interested in wine, and suggest that the user invite the
other users to the same wine tasting event. Lubeck, ,r [0024].
The advertisement of this combination would then provide a user
interface that includes an "invite" button for the user to invite the
other users to the event. Additionally, users invited to the event
form a group that can receive loyalty rewards from the local
winery. For example, if the group purchases a certain amount of
bottles of wine from the local winery in a given period of time,
the local winery will off er a discount to the group for future
purchases ofbottles of wine. Truong, ,r [0013].
(App. Br. 7-8.)
Appellants further contend that:
The combination of references does not disclose an
"action button for display on [a] webpage" within a domain
"different from a social networking domain of a social
networking system" that is "configured for receiving a user input
to cause a calendar event described on the web page to be
generated within the social network domain of the social
networking system" as claimed.
4
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
(App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).)
Appellants further contend that "the Examiner's argument, both in the
Office Action and again in the Examiner's Answer, relies on
improperly equating generating events with creating and sending
invitations." (Reply Br. 4.)
The Examiner explains the application of the prior art and fmds:
The user decides to purchase an item, for example a widget. The
user will typically be presented with a purchase page 1210 on
which the user can confrrm the purchase, for example by clicking
on a "Buy" button [i.e. an action button]. The third party
website 140 generates a message that identifies the third party
website 140 and describes the type of action (e.g., indicating
whether the action is a purchase, a rating, a request for
information, a subscription, or the like, as well as any other
information needed to describe the action, such as the item that
was purchased). In this example, the message would identify the
action as a purchase and would describe the item that was
purchased. Thethird party website 140 then transmits 1220 this
message to the social networking website 100. ). In addition
paragraph [0085] discloses although described in the context of
a purchase on the third party website 140, the technique is not
limited to purchases. Any other user actions on a third party
website 140 may be communicated to the social networking
website 100 for use thereby, including renting an item, making a
reservation, or any other action which the operator of the third
party website decides to select for such tracking. More specific
examples of other types of actions in other domains that may be
useful for generating social ads on the social networking website
100 include purchasing an article of clothing, purchasing tickets
to a concert, registering for a marathon, and making a flight
or restaurant reservation.
5
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
(Ans. 15-16, 18-19.)
In the Examiner's correlation of the disclosure of the Kendall
reference to the claimed invention, the Examiner fmds that the already
existing button on the third-party website corresponds to the claimed "action
button."
However, the action button (as claimed) is further configured to
receive a user input "to cause a calendar event described on the web page to
be generated within the social network domain of the social networking
system." Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or
technical reasoning that the BUY button in Kendall accepts user input and
additionally causes a calendar event to be generated. Instead, the cited
portions of Kendall describe that information content is passed from a third-
party website to a social networking system and the social networking
system simply provides a confrrmation indication to the third-party website. 2
The Examiner relies upon the Lubeck reference to teach and suggest
an invitation that will generate an invitation in an online social network
using an "INVITE" control button. (Ans. 16.) However, Lubeck describes a
2 Kendall discloses the confrrmation message may provide a sample story
that will be published on to user's social network friends. (Kendall if 88.)
As the Examiner notes, in addition to purchases, Kendall also discloses
transactions reported to the social networking site from the third-party site
may include making reservations and sending relevant information to the
social networking site. (Ans. 15-16 (citing Kendall ,r,r 85-86).) Notably,
Kendall also discloses a user's social network story may relate to an event
and, therefore, include event information. Nevertheless, the Examiner does
not fmd Kendall teaches or suggests these activities "cause a calendar event
described on the web page to be generated within the social network
domain," as recited in claim 1. Instead, the Examiner relies on Lubeck for
this teaching.
6
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
process wherein "an organizer of an event [may] create an electronic
invitation and ... distribute it to invitees." (Lubeck ,r 4.) Although an
invitee may accept the invitation-and it may result in the generation of a
calendar event within the invitee' s social networking domain-the Examiner
has not identified within Lubeck that the "INVITE" button (from the event
organizer) causes an action button associated with the social networking
system within a third-party web page to be displayed and, further, wherein
the action button receives a user input to cause the generation of a calendar
event within the social network domain of the social networking system.
The Examiner relies upon the Truong reference as receiving the user
input, providing the social networking system information for the calendar
event described on the webpage from the markup language associated with
the web page ( citing paragraph 40) "an administrator of the group may have
sends out invitations to co-workers or friends via email or a social media site
( such as Facebook or Linkedln)." (Final Act. 6.) We find that the teaching
of an administrator sending invitations does not remedy the noted deficiency
above with the creation of a new action button and subsequent use thereof to
provide to the social networking system information for the calendar event
described on the web page from the markup language document associated
with the web page and an identification of a user associated with the user
device for generating an event object for the calendar event in the social
networking system.
Therefore, we fmd that the Examiner erred in rejecting illustrative
claim 1 over the combination of Kendall, Lubeck, and Truong and similarly
erred in rejecting independent claims 7 and 13, which contain similar
7
Appeal2018-004284
Application 14/684,552
limitations. Therefore, we cannot sustain with rejection claims 1, 2, 4--8,
10-14, and 16-18.
With respect to the dependent claims 3, 9, and 15, the Examiner does
not identify how the Kirkham reference remedies the noted deficiency
above. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3, 9, and 15.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting illustrative independent claim 1 as
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kendall, Lubeck,
and Truong. For similar reasons, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7
and 13 and their respective dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1-18.
REVERSED
8