Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2021

2019005069 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2021)

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.
14/616,155 02/06/2015 Veselin S. Stoyanov 079894.2451 8312
168743 7590 02/01/2021
Jordan IP Law, LLC (Facebook)
12501 PROSPERITY DRIVE
SUITE 401
SILVER SPRING, MD 20904
EXAMINER
SKHOUN, HICHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2021 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):
admin@jordaniplaw.com
info@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte VESELIN S. STOYANOV,
IGOR RIBIERO DE ASSIS, and
ALEXANDER PERELYGIN 1
_____________

Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Facebook, Inc., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
December 11, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 10, 2019, the
Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed August 8, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 16, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”)
filed February 6, 2015.
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for determining a trending topic
from a plurality of topics of an online social network. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 23–26 (Claims App.).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention.
1. A method comprising, by one or more computing devices
of an online social network:
accessing, by a trending service component of the online
social network, a first set of posts comprising a plurality of
posts of the online social network posted within a first
timeframe, each post being associated with one or more topics
of a plurality of topics of the online social network;
determining, by the trending service component, a
trending topic from the plurality of topics of the online social
network;
generating, by a news event aggregator component of the
online social network, a news-event object associated with the
trending topic, the news-event object comprising a seed post
from the first set of posts and executable instructions for a
tagging-algorithm for identifying posts matching the trending
topic, wherein the tagging-algorithm comprises one or more
parameters corresponding to the trending topic associated with
the news-event object, and wherein the parameters comprise
one or more of:
an n-gram associated with the trending topic,
an entity associated with the trending topic,
a topic co-trending with the trending topic
a time of an event associated with the trending
topic, or
a location of an event associated with the trending
topic;
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
3

identifying, by executing the instructions of the tagging-
algorithm by the news event aggregator component, one or
more posts from the first set of posts that match the trending
topic by:
generating a search query associated with the
trending topic,
identifying one or more posts from the first set of
posts that match one or more of the parameters,
scoring the identified posts based on one or more
of the parameters, and
selecting one or more of the posts having scores
greater than a pre-determined threshold score;
generating, by a news event post-analyzer, a plurality of
search-results modules, each search-results module comprising
a plurality of search results, each search result comprising a
reference to an identified post that matches the trending topic;
and
sending, to a client device of a user from a search
frontend of the online social network, instructions for
presenting a search-results page comprising the search-results
modules.
PRIOR ART
Name3 Reference Date
Su US 2013/0110823 A1 May 2, 2013
Griffin US 2014/0025734 A1 Jan. 23, 2014
Sayers US 2014/0039876 A1 Feb. 6, 2014

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
4

REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE5
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
(2) as anticipated by Su. Non-Final Act. 9–22.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Su and
Sayers. Non-Final Act. 23–24.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Su and
Griffin. Non-Final Act. 24–25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–20 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error.
We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific
arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s
arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 7–20: ANTICIPATION BY SU.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “generating, by a news event
aggregator component of the online social network, a news-event object
associated with the trending topic, the news-event object comprising a seed
post from the first set of posts and executable instructions for a tagging-
algorithm for identifying posts matching the trending topic.” Appeal Br. 21
(Claims App.). Appellant contends this limitation is not disclosed by Su.
Appeal Br. 15.

4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Non-Final
Act 2.
5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
5

The Examiner finds the claimed “news-event object” is disclosed by
the “trending topic identification module” of Su. Non-Final Act. 11–12
(citing Su, ¶¶ 32, 103); Non-Final Act. 32 (“named entity” “Barack Obama”
is a news-event object, where “Barack Obama” was also a “trending topic.”).
Appellant contends the “named entity,” disclosed by Su, is not
equivalent to the claimed “news-event object.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant
argues Su states:
[a]s used herein, the term ‘named entity’ refers to phrases that
contain the names of persons, organizations, locations, times
and quantities. The term may also encompass other rigid
designators commonly recognized as named entities by persons
skilled in the art of named entity recognition (NER).
Id. 16–17 (quoting Su, ¶ 63). Appellant argues, a “named entity” is merely a
phrase or designator. Id.
The Examiner points to Appellant’s definition of “seed post.” Ans. 4
(citing US 2016/02322416, ¶ 49). The Examiner finds “a tagging-algorithm
may parse the text of the seed post to identify one or more n-grams, noun
phrases, or names.” Id. Thus, the Examiner finds “[t]herefore in line with
the Appellant’s specification, Su . . . teaches the argued limitations.” Ans. 5.
Appellant contends: “as explained in the Appeal Brief, the ‘named
entity’ in Su is merely a phrase or designator that cannot be [] equivalent to a
news-event object, which is a type of structured document on an online
social network that can include various components (e.g., a seed post, a
tagging-algorithm).” Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Spec., ¶ 46). Appellant argues
the Answer does not address this deficiency.

6 The Pre-Grant Publication of the present Application.
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
6

Appellant’s Specification discloses: “[i]n particular embodiments, the
news-event object includes a seed post from the first set of posts and a
tagging-algorithm for identifying posts matching the trending topic.” Spec.,
¶ 46. The Examiner does not direct our attention to any disclosure in Su of a
structured document or to other object comprising a post and code for an
algorithm, as claimed and defined by Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claim 1. Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 15), and we agree, that independent
Claims 19 and 20 recite commensurate limitations. Therefore, we similarly
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
CLAIM 3: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SU AND SAYERS.
Appellant contends Sayers does not make up for the deficiencies of
Su. Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner does not apply Sayers to teach the disputed limitations.
Ans. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CLAIM 6: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SU AND GRIFFIN.
Appellant contends Griffin does not make up for the deficiencies of
Su. Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner does not apply Griffin to teach the disputed limitations.
Ans. 6. R. 21.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-005069
Application 14/616,155
7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
7–20
102 Su 1, 2, 4, 5,
7–20
3 103 Su, Sayers 3
6 103 Su, Griffin 6
Overall 1–20

REVERSED