Ex Parte TsengDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612976743 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/976,743 12/22/2010 87851 7590 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 06/02/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erick Tseng 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. 26295-17321 8023 EXAMINER LO,ANNJ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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 fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERICK TSENG and DAVID BRAGINSKY Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-8 and 18-24. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is generally directed to providing a context search in which a list of search results is ranked according to a relevance score. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below, with the disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: maintaining social information for a social networking system user; receiving a search query from a user device associated with the user; receiving a location of the user device; determining a list of search results based on the search query, each search result comprising a search value; associating each search result with a third-party content object; calculating a relevance score for each result by matching the user location, social information, and search value to the third-party content object associated with the search result, where the relevance score is based at least in part on a connection value for the third-party content object associated with the search result, the connection value based on one or more connections of the user who are associated with the third-party content object; ranking the listing of search results by the relevance scores of the third-party content objects associated with the search results; and providing the ranked list of search results to a notification controller. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein maintaining the social information comprises: 2 Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 maintaining affinity information for the user according to one or more categories; and maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other users of the social networking system. REFERENCE AND REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ramer (US 2008/0214148 Al; Sept. 4, 2008). Final Act. 3---6. ISSUES The issues in this appeal are: (i) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ramer discloses "where the relevance score is based at least in part on a connection value for the third-party content object associated with the search result, the connection value based on one or more connections of the user \x1ho are associated \x1ith the third-party content object," as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 18; and (ii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ramer discloses "maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other users of the social networking system," as recited in dependent claims 2 and 19. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 8, and 18 "where the relevance score is based at least in part on a connection value ... , the connection value based on one or more connections of the user who are associated with the third-party content object" 3 Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 Appellants argue that Ramer fails to disclose determining a relevance score based at least in part on a connection value that is based on one or more connections of the user. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-6. Specifically, Appellants argue that Ramer discloses determining relevant content for a user based on user characteristics specific to each individual user in isolation, and not based on connections (e.g., friends) of the user. App. Br. 8-10. Appellants also argue that Ramer does not disclose using associations between those connections of the user and third-party content objects in determining relevance. App. Br. 8-10. The Examiner responds that Ramer discloses that relevancy can be based on an authoritative user's association with a third party content object, and that such an authoritative user is a connection of the user. Ans. 4---6. 2 We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Claims 1, 8, and 18 require that the relevance score of a third-party content object be based in part on "one or more connections of the user who are associated with the third-party content object." This limitation merely requires that relevance be based in part on a connection of a user who is associated with a third-party content object. As the Examiner found, Ramer discloses determining relevance based on authoritative user's association with a content object. Ramer i-fi-1883-84, 933, 938, and 982-83. Ramer also discloses that such an authoritative user can be within a user's private network or social network, and thus is a connection of the user. Ramer i-fi-1 982, 984. The claim 2 As Appellants observed in their Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3 n.1 ), the Examiner's paragraph number cites accompanying the cited passages of Ramer on pages 2-7 of the Answer are incorrect. We agree with Appellants and included corrected citations in this Decision. 4 Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 limitation does not specify a type of "connection" that is required, and the specification does not limit or define the term "connection." See, e.g., Spec, i-fi-1 21, 31, and 89. Thus, an authoritative user who is within the same private network of a user-as disclosed in Ramer-is a "connection of the user" as claimed. We thus sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 18, and dependent claims 3-7 and 20-24 which are not separately argued. Dependent claims 2 and 19 "maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other users of the social networking system " Appellants also argue that Ramer does not disclose maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other users of the social networking system, as recited in dependent claims 2 and 19. App. Br. 10- 11. The Examiner finds that Ramer discloses that users can share information with other users who share a connection in a social network with the user. Ans. 7 (citing Ramer i-fi-1943, 914, 935, 945, and 982). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. As the Examiner found, Ramer discloses maintaining connections between users of a social networking system. See, e.g., Ramer i-fi-1914, 943, 945, 982, and 984--86. Appellants have failed to traverse the specific factual findings made by the Examiner. See Ans. 6-8; Reply Br. 2---6. On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding claims 2 and 19. For this reason and the reasons explained above with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 19. 5 Appeal2014-005996 Application 12/976,743 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 18-24. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation