13595547 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2017)

Ex Parte Tiu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 2017

13595547 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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. 13/595,547 08/27/2012 William K. Tiu JR. 079894.0887 5308 91230 7590 Baker Botts L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2017 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomail2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM K. TIU JR. and JEFFREY J. ROBERTO Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non- Final Rejection of claims 1—11, 16, 17, and 21—27, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application “generally relates to processing of online social network data, and more particularly, to a method and system for managing multimedia content appearing on user pages of an online social network.” Spec. 12. Claims 1,11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference1 (with emphases added): 1. A method comprising, by one or more processors associated with one or more servers for a social network: receiving, by the one or more processors, a search request comprising parameters corresponding to group information associated with a group in the social network, the social network having a plurality of users; determining, by the one or more processors, from the plurality of users of the social network, one or more matching users who are members of the group associated with the group information of the search request; retrieving, by the one or more processors, profile information for at least one of the one or more matching users who are members of the group; and sending, by the one or more processors, in response to the search request, the profile information and the group information for the at least one of the one or more matching users who are members of the group. 1 Regarding the claims, we refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2014. References and Rejections The prior art relied upon by the Examiner: Wistendahl Work US 5,708,845 Jan. 13, 1998 US 8,010,460 B2 Aug. 30, 2011 US 8,015,119 B2 Sept. 6,2011 US 8,386,469 B2 Feb. 26, 2013 Buyukkokten Reuther 2 Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 (1) Claims 1—5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 21—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Work. Final Act. 3. (2) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Work and Wistendahl. Final Act. 9. (3) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Work and Reuther. Final Act. 10. (4) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Work and Buyukkokten. Final Act. 10—11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Independent claim 1 recites several steps, including: receiving a search request, determining users in a social network, and sending user information relating to parameters corresponding to group information associated with a group in the social network. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, because “Work merely discloses a process for evaluating the ‘reputation’ of members in a social network,” and thus does not teach the steps based on group information required by the claims. App. Br. 5; see also App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because: the Examiner is impermissibly selecting aspects of one embodiment [] and combining them with aspects of separate embodiments of Work. In particular, the cited portions of Work teach two distinct, non-overlapping embodiments: (1) searching for a “a new friend, romantic interest, business partner or employee” who “meet various requirements” [note these 3 Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 “requirements” are not subsequently described] and then returning search results in “ranked order according to any desired criteria,” as disclosed in column 2, lines 7-11, column 8, lines 26-29, and column 11, lines 5-7 of Work; and (2) evaluating the “reputation” of members in a social network based on, for example, “having membership in the same trusted group” or “based on name recognition, title and organization size,” as disclosed in column 15, lines 27-29, and column 16, lines 14-18 of Work. These teachings relate to entirely different and non overlapping embodiments. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants’ Specification provides no narrowing definitions or examples of the recited user search request parameters, except for a single discussion of the recited group and group information: “groups (e.g., organizations, school alumni associations, family, etc.) that users have defined. The group information may include, among other things: a unique group identifier (group ID), name, description of the group, and members of the group.” Spec. 123. In light of the Specification’s broad disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that the recited “parameters corresponding to group information” reasonably encompass the parameters used for searching in Work, “since each of [Work’s searched for] ‘romantic interests’, ‘business partner’, or an ‘employee’ is essentially [a] different group[].” Ans. 4 (citing Work 2:7— 14); see also Non-Final Act. 3-A; Work 2:23—26; 8:26—29. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Work discloses the claim 1 search and determining steps based on group information associated with a 4 Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 group. See Non-Final Act. 3^4. We also do not find the Examiner erred in determining Work discloses “sending in response to the search request, the profile information and the group information for the at least one of the one or more matching users who are members of the group,” because Work discloses a search-results display that includes a user’s profile information and group information, such as employment, schools attended, member connections, other reputation indicator categories, and “a wide variety of other information.” Work 18:46-47; see also Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Work Fig. 4). Regarding Appellants’ contention that the Examiner combined two different embodiments of Work (See Reply Br. 2), we are not persuaded of error. First, we do not find the Examiner improperly combined multiple embodiments of Work, nor do we find Work discloses discrete embodiments. Rather, Work, as cited by the Examiner, discloses a search for users of a social network which uses reputation information. See, e.g., Work 2:23—26 (“Searchers use these stored references and endorsements to enhance their ability to find others who not only appear to match their requirements, but who have also received positive endorsements.”). For at least this reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that, although a prior art reference discloses a number of different combinations of compounds for a chewing gum composition, one of the combinations anticipates the challenged claim when the combinations are all meant to be used in a single product). Second, we find each aspect of Work, as cited by Appellants, anticipates the limitations of claim 1. See Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants have 5 Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 not shown the Examiner erred in finding Work’s disclosure of searching for a person who meets various requirements (i.e., the alleged first embodiment) discloses the disputed limitations, as discussed above. See id. Nor do Appellants persuade us that Work’s reputation evaluation (i.e., the alleged second embodiment) is precluded by the claims. See id. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Work discloses “search parameters corresponding to group information associated with a group,” because “Work explicitly teaches, in column 11, lines 5—7, that ‘Any search results may be returned in ranked order according to any desired criteria.’” Ans. 5. Work describes these ranked search results are from “searches for people who . . . work or have worked in any of the organizations described in the target’s profile during the same time that the target worked there.” Work 10:67—11:5. We find Work’s disclosure of searching for individuals who work in the same organization as the target user is tantamount to the claimed search comprising parameters corresponding to group information. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, or independent claims 11 and 16 which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 9. Appellants advance no additional substantive arguments on the dependent claims; accordingly, we sustain the dependent claims for the reasons discussed above. See App. Br. 9-10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 16, 17, and 21—27 is affirmed. 6 Appeal 2016-003325 Application 13/595,547 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 7