Ex Parte Petersen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201612722564 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation