Ex Parte Petersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

12722564 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121722,564 03/12/2010 Steven L. Petersen
119000 7590 05/18/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
SUITE 160
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-CRD-006/US (P410) 3441
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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 STEVEN L. PETERSEN and
RA VI REDDY KATPELL Y
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 13-17, and 25-28.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Waldeck Technology,
LLC. (App. Br. 3.)
2 The Examiner has stated that claims 6-12 and 18-24 would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 12.)
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining aggregate profile data for a group of users of a
plurality of computing devices that are pertinent to a current
location of a computing device operated by a subject user,
wherein the aggregate profile data3 for the group of users is
based at least in part on a comparison of user profiles of the
group of users and includes non-demographic data; and
augmenting a user profile of the subject user based on the
aggregate profile data for the group of users of the plurality of
computing devices that are pertinent to the current location of
the computing device operated by the subject user.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5 and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Charlebois (US 2009/0125321 Al; published May
14, 2009) and Rosenberg (US 2007/0143348 Al; published June 21, 2007).
(Final Act. 2-9.)
Claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Charlebois, Rosenberg, and Ramer (US 2007 /0061328
Al; published Mar. 15, 2007). (Final Act. 9-12.)
3 Appellants' Claims Appendix includes a typographical error (i.e., "date"
instead of "data"). (App. Br. 19.) The currently pending claims as amended
on July 17, 2013 do not include this typographical error. Thus, we analyze
the pending claims without that typographical error.
2
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err by finding Charlebois teaches or suggests
"obtaining aggregate profile data for a group of users of a plurality of
computing devices that are pertinent to a current location of a computing
device operated by a subject user," as recited in claims 1, 26, and 27?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Charlebois and
Rosenberg teaches or suggests "the aggregate profile data ... includes non-
demographic data," as recited in independent claims 1, 26, and 27?
Did the Examiner improperly combine Charlebois and Rosenberg?
Did the Examiner err by finding Rosenberg teaches or suggests "a
plurality of keywords," as recited in claim 3?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 2-13) from which this appeal is
taken, the findings and reasons set forth by the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2
(mailed Nov. 20, 2013)), and the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-14).
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
"aggregate profile data"
Appellants argue the combination of Charlebois and Rosenberg does
not teach or suggest "obtaining aggregate profile data for a group of users of
3
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
a plurality of computing devices that are pertinent to a current location of a
computing device operated by a subject user," as recited in claims 1, 26, and
27. (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 3.) Specifically, Appellants argue
Charlebois teaches "information specific to a user," rather than "aggregate
profile data for a group of users." (App. Br. 13-14 (citing Charlebois
iTiT 134--142, 147-150); Reply Br. 3.)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Charlebois
teaches or suggests inferring a profile attribute confidence level from "a
sample of one-hundred users with the same home location." (See Ans. 13
(citing Charlebois iT 149) (emphasis omitted).) That is, the inferred profile
attribute confidence level teaches aggregate profile data for a group of users
because the inferred profile attribute confidence level is based on a group of
users in the same location as the specific user. (See id.)
Appellants argue that a particular user's profile attributes are
associated with confidence levels (App. Br. 14 (citing Charlebois iTiT 147-
150); however, we find those associated confidence levels for the user's
profile attributes are assigned using inferred profile attribute confidence
levels derived from a group of users (Charlebois iT 149). The Examiner
finds, and we agree, the inferred profile attribute confidence levels, not the
particular user's profile attributes, teach aggregate profile data. (See Ans.
13.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Charlebois teaches or suggests "obtaining aggregate profile data for a group
of users of a plurality of computing devices that are pertinent to a current
location of a computing device operated by a subject user," as recited in
claims 1, 26, and 27.
4
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
"non-demographic data"
Appellants argue neither Charlebois nor Rosenberg teaches or
suggests "the aggregate profile data ... includes non-demographic data," as
recited in independent claims 1, 26, and 27. (App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 3-
4.) Specifically, Appellants argue Charlebois teaches inferred profile
attributes for demographic data, rather than non-demographic data, and
"non-demographic information and demographic information are not treated
identically" by Charlebois. (Reply Br. 3 (citing Charlebois i-f 149) (emphasis
omitted); App. Br. 13 (citing Charlebois i-fi-1122, 123, 130-133), 14 (citing
Charlebois i-fi-1147-150).) Appellants also argue Rosenberg does not
disclose non-demographic data. (App. Br. 12 (citing Rosenberg i-f 22).)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that confidence levels for demographic profile attributes
of a user are set using aggregate profile data. (Ans. 13 (citing Charlebois
i-f 149).) The Examiner further finds (id.), and we agree, Charlebois' profile
attributes include non-demographic attributes such as "Interest
categorization[,] Favorite keywords[,] Favorite websites[,] Advertisements
of interest[,] Music album[,] and Games of interest" (see Charlebois i-fi-1136-
141 ). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to additionally set confidence levels for
non-demographic profile attributes using aggregate profile data. (See Ans.
14 (citations omitted).)
Appellants' argument discussing the differences between data types
(Reply Br. 3) does not persuade us that applying Charlebois' teachings to
additionally infer confidence levels for non-demographic profile data would
have been uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled
5
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, because Charlebois teaches or suggests
non-demographic data, Rosenberg need not teach non-demographic data.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding Charlebois
teaches or suggests "the aggregate profile data ... includes non-
demographic data," as recited in independent claims 1, 26, and 27.
Motivation to Combine
Appellants further argue the Examiner improperly combined
Charlebois and Rosenberg. (Reply Br. 4.) Specifically, Appellants argue it
would not have been obvious to modify Charlebois with Rosenberg because
Charlebois teaches non-demographic profile data "is inferred from the user's
own behavior, whereas the demographic information of Rosenberg is
collected from other users." (Id. (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Specifically, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds Charlebois teaches or
suggests setting confidence levels for user profile attributes using aggregate
profile data. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Rosenberg teaches
"creating aggregate profile data based on a comparison of user profiles."
(Ans. 13-14 (citing Rosenberg i-f 22); Final Act. 3.) The Examiner combines
Charlebois and Rosenberg so that Charlebios' aggregate profile data would
further consider compared user profiles in order to "accurately measure the
confidence levels" of inferred profile attributes. (See Ans. 14.)
Appellants' arguments (Reply Br. 4) do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to improve the accuracy of Charlebois' aggregate profile data to set
6
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
user profile attribute confidence levels. The Examiner applies Rosenberg's
profile data comparison technique to a type of profile data (non-
demographic) in Charlebois to improve Charlebois' use of non-demographic
profile data. (See Ans. 14.) While the manner in which demographic and
non-demographic attributes are collected may be different in Charlebois and
Rosenberg, the differences in the manner in which various types of profile
data are collected do not persuade us that the Examiner's motivation for
combination, improving the accuracy of profile attributes, is improper.
"keywords"
Appellants argue Rosenberg does not teach "a plurality of keywords,"
as recited in claim 3. (App. Br. 17.) Specifically, Appellants argue "age
range is not considered a keyword." (Id.) Appellants further argue, even if
age range is a keyword, Rosenberg's "age range is just one keyword." (Id.)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4), and we
agree, Rosenberg provides profile attribute keywords characterizing "users
below 21 years old," "users between 22 and 35 years old," "users between
36 and 55 years old," and "users 56 and over" (see Rosenberg i-f 40).
Appellants' argument that, even under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, an age range is not a keyword (App. Br. 17) is not persuasive
because the Specification teaches the scope of "keywords" encompasses age
ranges. In particular, the Specification teaches a "keyword of 18-24 years
old." (Spec. i-f 69.) Therefore, Rosenberg's age range teaches a keyword as
recited in claim 3. Further, because Rosenberg discloses multiple age
ranges, e.g., 22-35, 36-55, etc., Rosenberg discloses multiple keywords.
7
Appeal2014-007432
Application 12/722,564
(Rosenberg if 40.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by
finding Rosenberg teaches "a plurality of keywords," as recited in claim 3.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2,
4, 5, 13-17, 25, and 28 which depend directly or indirectly claim 1. (App.
Br. 17.) For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 13-17, 25, and 28. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 13-17,
and 25-28 is affirmed
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8