Ex Parte Vandermolen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13612839 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/612,839 09/13/2012 Harmannus VANDERMOLEN 19487.234.1.1 1793
107193 7590 03/02/2017
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
MINA, FATIMA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gj olley @ kj pip. com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARMANNUS VANDERMOLEN, CHARLES FISH,
KAREN HOWE, PAUL VIDICH, and SCOTT J. LEVINE
Appeal 2016-002495
Application n/612,8391
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 33—63, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to customizing a user’s online
experience by updating a user profile with information about topics that
interest the user or web browsing behavior associated with the user. Spec. 1.
Claims 33, 47, and 58 are independent. Claim 33 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
33. A method comprising:
enabling a presentation of a user selectable element in
association with a presentation of electronic content, wherein a
user can simultaneously view at least a portion of the electronic
content and the user selectable element;
detecting, using at least one processor, a selection by the
user of the user selectable element to indicate interest in the
electronic content;
enabling, in response to the detected selection of the user
selectable element, a presentation of one or more topics for
association, by the user, with the electronic content',
detecting a selection by the user of at least one topic from
the one or more topics', and
updating, based on the detected selection of the at least
one topic, a user profde associated with the user to reflect an
association between the electronic content and the selected at
least one topic.
App. Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 33—38, 40, 42—52, 54—59, and 61—63 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Singer et al. (US
2
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
2002/0198859 Al; Dec. 26, 2002) (“Singer”) and Achlioptas (US
2005/0071479 Al; Mar. 31, 2005). Non-Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 39, 41, 53, and 60 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Singer, Achlioptas, and Cone et al.
(US 2006/0026147 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) (“Cone”). Non-Final Act. 8-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue independent claims 33, 47, and 58 as a group, and
we choose claim 33 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior
art teaches the following limitations recited in claim 33: (1) “enabling, in
response to the detected selection of the user selectable element, a
presentation of one or more topics for association, by the user, with the
electronic content;” (2) “detecting a selection ... of at least one topic;” and
(3) “updating, based on the detected selection ... a user profile ... to reflect
an association between the electronic content and the selected . . . topic.”
App. Br. 21—24; Reply Br. 2—5. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred
in finding a rationale to combine Singer and Achlioptas. App. Br. 24—25;
3
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants’ arguments, however, do not persuade us of
error.
As the Examiner finds, the “enabling” and “detecting” limitations are
taught in Singer. Ans. 10-11. Figure 3 of Singer, relied upon by the
Examiner, is reproduced below.
IBM Mivm first Production-Ready isfraffifuctore Software and Services to Enable Web Services
SOMERS, N. Y, —(BUSINESS WIREJ-May U, 2MH-
ISM (NYSEftBM - news) Provides New Connectivity for Businesses on Web Pins
Ttmsacttosvtntegt'atiya Capabilities to Take Ativsutage of it — Targets $50 Billion Musfrv Oppurtauitv
303,,____ 30fc.. 3Cc
av announced across-the-board ainnort of openJs
software to proff ' '
f capabilities
securely masisg
30i
www ibm. com_
w3 ibm.com
--------- r ........ „ standards for its infrastructure
rinmchcfty on the well The company also aimonnced
40 e advantage of that connectivity, iuchutmg those far
and integrating complex business processes.
“ 4.2 30t
^ fa addition, tte company aanourtced consulting sod systems integration support from §BM hkibal
SgiVee j to help businesses build Web services applications using IBM's infrastructure software.
30h - jlDti estimates the markei for infrastructure software and services that simplify mtegtaiion of
business processes wii approach $50 bittfon by 2005. in addition, the increased integration will drive the
growth of transactions ©a the Web ‘fti-feld in the same time frame.
To target this growth, IBM is enabling all of its infrastructure software — known as middleware —
with comprehensive support for open internet standards to enable the devrinwmect ofWdb services
applications, The support spare; IBM’s entire tniddiewwe portfolio, including bB2.S? ,tm^iTls'oli iand
r~fii5cii^iSo5v.>tire. 3fs1 30e 30f
308
Figure 3 is an illustration of a web page including text from a press release.
Singer 125. The web page includes “anchor candidate 30a” (illustrated as
the text “IBM”), which is a user selectable element that, when selected (i.e.,
selection is “detected”), causes the display of “dialog box 42.” Singer 136.
Dialog box 42, in turn, is a presentation of one or more topics for
“association” with the user selectable element, shown in Figure 3 as two
URFs (“hot links 40”) that may correspond to IBM. Id. As the Examiner
finds, the “topics” (hot links 40) may be selected by a user, causing an
association between that topic and the user selectable element, just as in
claim 33. Ans. 10-12; Singer 136; see also id. at 119.
4
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
Appellants argue the ‘“hot link’ as taught by Singer is not a ‘topic’ as
presently claimed.” App. Br. 22. Appellants’ Specification, however, states
the topics for association “may include keywords, a uniform resource locator
(URL) [i.e., a hot link] and/or a category associated with the significant
content.” Spec. 3; see also Ans. 10. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument.
As the Examiner further finds, although Singer does not expressly
disclose “updating” a “user profile” based on selection of the topic, the
limitation is taught by combining Achlioptas with Singer. Ans. 11—12
(emphasis added). Specifically, Achlioptas teaches as a user browses web
pages, “each additional click [such as selecting “this is interesting to me”]
further annotates a user’s personal profile” as “relationships are classified
and made by the user.” Achlioptas 135—36; see also id. at || 8—9, 45, 61.
Appellants argue Achlioptas only teaches an association between “the user
and the content of the web page,” not the claimed association between
electronic content and the selected topic. App. Br. 23. As discussed above,
however, the claimed association between content and topic is taught in
Singer, and the Examiner additionally relies on the teaching in Achlioptas of
updating a “user profile associated with the user” to reflect an association.
Ans. 11—13. Because “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981), Appellants’
argument does not persuade us of error.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding a rationale to
combine Singer and Achlioptas. App. Br. 24—25. Appellants contend
Singer’s web page design methods and Achlioptas’ web browsing system
5
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
serve different purposes. Id. As the Examiner finds, however, Singer and
Achlioptas both are directed to parsing the content of a web page,
recognizing and extracting information from the page, and making
associations based on that information. Ans. 12—13. Moreover, the
principle in Achlioptas that a user profile may be updated is a predictable
result or consequence of having a user profile, which would be understood
by one of ordinary skill. Ans. 12. Appellants do not point to any evidence
of record that the cited combination was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418—19 (2007). Indeed, the cited combination exemplifies the principle,
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting the independent claims.
The remaining claims (all of which are dependent) are not argued
separately. App. Br. 26. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
33—38, 40, 42—52, 54—59, and 61—63 as being obvious over the combined
teachings and suggestions of Singer and Achlioptas, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 39, 41, 53, and 60 as being obvious over the combined
teachings and suggestions of Singer, Achlioptas, and Cone.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 33—63.
6
Appeal 2016-002495
Application 13/612,839
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7