Ex Parte Srikanth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

11966338 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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.
11/966,338 12/28/2007 Hema Srikanth BOC920070069US1 4957
130827 7590 09/28/2017
The Steadman Law Firm PLLC
5968 Dutchman Creek Road
Southport, NC 28461
EXAMINER
GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
astead @ thesteadmanlawfirm.com
asteadlaw@gmail.com
firm@thesteadmanlawfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEMA SRIKANTH, BRYAN OSENBACH and
JEFFREY SLOYER
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
10, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 30-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
Introduction
The invention is directed to “systems and methods for recommending
network content based upon social network attributes.” Specification 1.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
in response to a user accessing a communications
network, determining a membership of the user in at least one
social network associated with an external computer system
operating independently in the communications network;
determining a level of social connection within the at
least one social network between the user and at least one other
member of the at least one social network;
identifying preferred network content associated with the
at least one other member of the at least one social network by
determining a number of times the at least one other member of
the at least one social network accesses a particular network site
for obtaining the preferred network content within a
predetermined period of time;
transmitting to the user a list comprising a plurality of
network sites for accessing the preferred network content,
wherein the list includes the preferred network content
associated with the at least one other member of the at least
one social network only if the level of social connection
between the user and the at least one other member of the at
least one social network exceeds a predetermined threshold;
and
prioritizing the list based upon a plurality of personal
attributes corresponding to the user, wherein the plurality of
personal attributes includes at least one of age group,
educational background, or ethnicity, and wherein each of the
plurality of personal attributes is allocated a predetermined
weight based upon a user valuation.
3
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 and 33—37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering (US
Patent 7,689,682 Bl; issued March 30, 2010) and Dutta (US Patent
Application Publication 2002/0078045 Al; published June 20, 2002). Final
Rejection 4—8.
Claims 32 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eldering, Dutta and Killian (US Patent 6,163,316; issued
December 19, 2000). Final Rejection 8.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 11, 2015), the Reply Brief
(filed July 25, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed July 16, 2015) and the
Answer (mailed May 26, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend “the cited references do not teach or suggest
prioritizing a list based upon a plurality of personal attributes corresponding
to the user, wherein each of the plurality of personal attributes is allocated a
predetermined weight based upon a user valuation.” Appeal Brief 9. The
Examiner finds Eldering “does not teach prioritizing the list [comprising a
plurality of network sites for accessing the preferred network content] based
upon a plurality of personal attributes corresponding to the user.” Final
Rejection 5. The Examiner finds Dutta addresses Eldering’s noted
deficiency by disclosing “a system for prioritizing a list of content for
display to a user based upon a combination of user categories, whereby the
4
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
categories may include the age, profession, geographical location, gender,
and personal interests of the user. See par. 39.” Final Rejection 5—6.
Appellants further contend that Dutta does not resolve Eldering’s
deficiencies because:
Dutta does not teach or suggest anything analogous to allocating
a predetermined weight to each of a plurality of personal
attributes based upon a user valuation. Rather, prior to selection
by a user to whom search results are returned, the categories as
disclosed in Dutta are weighted based on means employed by the
disclosed search engine server using one or more techniques (see,
e.g., Dutta paragraphs [0048]-[0051]). For instance, Dutta
discloses assignment of category weights of “10,” “5,” and “1”
to respective URLs for respective categories (see Dutta
paragraph [0047] and FIG. 6), and such weights are assigned
based upon means employed by the disclosed search engine
server rather than based upon a valuation of the user (see Dutta
paragraph [0048], lines 1-4). Since the user in the context of the
Dutta disclosure is merely selecting which of the already-
weighted categories should be used in returning search results,
such category selection by the user does not entail allocating a
predetermined weight to each of a plurality of personal attributes
as claimed. Rather, such category selection by the user in the
context of Dutta arguably entails mere filtering, for display
purposes, of categories that already have been weighted based
upon means employed by the disclosed search engine server.
Appeal Brief 10.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and agree with the
Examiner’s findings because Dutta explicitly tailors lists (search results)
based upon user-defined categories. See Dutta, paragraph 38. Dutta
discloses, “In a system, method and program for ordering search results of
files available over a network, search results obtained by a search engine
server may be ranked by associating user category weights with each file
indexed in a search database.” Abstract. In paragraph 39, Dutta also
5
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
discloses, “The user categories may define categories in which users with
similar profiles or characteristics may be assigned, to provide for search
results ranked in accordance with the user category” and “Such profile
services may provide initial user categories to be selected based on user
demographics, for example.”
We also find Appellants’ arguments fail to distinguish the user recited
in the claims from the user disclosed in Dutta. It is evident that Dutta
discloses prioritizing a list (or search results) based upon personal attributes
(or various user-defined categories) and therefore we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed invention would have been obvious in
view of the Eldering/Dutta combination.2 See Final Rejection 6.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as, independent claims 10 and 21,
commensurate is scope and not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 12. We
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 25,
26, 28, 30—33 and 35—38, not separately argued, for the same reasons as
independent claims 1, 10 and 21. Appeal Brief 12, 14.
Appellants argue:
Eldering does not teach or suggest designating a particular
network site a preferred site for a social network member that has
accessed the particular network site in excess of a predetermined
threshold as [required in claim 3]. Appellant respectfully submits
that the threshold and associated conditions as disclosed in
2 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
6
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
Eldering are not synonymous with the threshold and associated
conditions as recited in Claim 3.
Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner finds:
Eldering teaches a system that identifies content as implicitly
recommended by a user if the user accesses the content a
threshold number of times. For instance, at col. 32, In. 31-36,
Eldering discloses generating an output feed containing
recommended network content, where recommended network
content is defined as network content that a user has “viewed or
listened to repeatedly (using, e.g., a particular threshold for the
number of times) . . . .”
Answer 8.
Appellants further argue, “While Eldering discloses generating output
data feeds including content consumed by users a threshold number of times,
Eldering does not disclose designating a particular network site a preferred
network site for any social networking member accessing such particular
network site in excess of a threshold number of times.” Appeal Brief 8. We
do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner’s
findings because Eldering discloses recommending (designating) network
sites based upon content consumed by users of different social networks.
Answer 8 (citing Eldering, column 42, lines 9-19). We sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 3, as well as claims 23 and 34 not
argued separately. Appeal Brief 13—14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 21,
23, 25, 26, 28 and 30-38 are affirmed.
7
Appeal 2016-007320
Application 11/966,338
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
8