Ex Parte Omidyar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

11174280 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111174,280 07/01/2005
758 7590 09/26/2016
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pierre Omidyar
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.
24803-10513 8858
EXAMINER
CHANG,TOMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
PTOC@Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE OMIDY AR
Appeal2013-009931
Application 11/174,280
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing of the April 28, 2016, Decision on
Appeal ("Decision"), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 9-16 and
23-27, 29, 30, and 32-36 as being anticipated by Petras and claims 28 and
31 as being unpatentable over Petras and D' Avello. We have reconsidered
the Decision in light of Appellant's arguments but, for the reasons given
below, we are not persuaded any points were misapprehended or overlooked
by the Board in our Decision therein.
Appellant argues the Board has made an erroneous determination with
respect to Figure 123 of Petras which allows the user providing the feedback
to earn points, not the user being rated (Req. Reh'g 3). Appellant further
Appeal2013-009931
Application 11/17 4,280
argues that, based on Figure 26-A of Petras, "a user earns points when
content contributed by the user is merely viewed by another user," which is
not the same as the claimed providing feedback regarding the content
provided by the first user (id.). Appellant adds that Petras does not include
any teachings related to "incrementing or decrementing that user's 'feedback
score' based upon another user providing feedback" (id.).
The Examiner found "points may be accumulated based on other
users' rating of such comments made by the user" as discussed in paragraph
619 with respect to Figure 123 of Petras (Ans. 10). The Board agreed with
and adopted those findings and further determined that
As further shown in Figures 26-A, 27-B, 78, and 203, Petras
allows users to earn points for different activities performed by
both the users and others. Thus, although a total number of
points determines the user access to awards and contests,
awarded points are accumulated by performing different
activities or parameters, such as providing content (to earn bank
units) and viewing the content by others (to earn a feedback
score).
(Decision 5).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Figure
123 relates to the embodiment shown in Figures 118A and 118B which
depict the attributes associated with a particular entry, including different
usefulness ratings that are further shown in Figure 119 as user's feedback on
the presented information (see Petras i-fi-1 618---620). That is, although the
user who provided the comments is awarded points, the level of usefulness
of the presented information is the feedback or score provided by another
user and meets the recited feedback score provided by a second user with
respect to the content or information the first user provided (Petras i1 618,
Figs. 118A, 119). Second, the user in Petras gains access based on the two
2
Appeal2013-009931
Application 11/17 4,280
parameters, such as "bank units" by providing content (Petras i1 406) and the
"feedback score allocated to the first user" in the form of comments
provided by the second user regarding the level of usefulness of the
information provided by the first user (Petras i-f 618) (see also Decision 5---6).
DECISION
Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellant's request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellant's
request to make any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
DENIED
3