Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2021

2020004899 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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.
15/299,330 10/20/2016 Anand Sumatilal Bhalgat 26295-33473/US 1045
87851 7590 03/25/2021
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2021 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANAND SUMATILAL BHALGAT and HAO SONG
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to determining accuracy of a model
determining a likelihood of a user performing an action after presentation of
content. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, at an online system comprising at least one
hardware processor, a content item associated with a bid amount
and with an action that is performable on content accessible
following selection of a link included in the content item, the bid
amount received by the online system in response to the action
being performed;
determining, by the online system, a set of users of the
online system eligible to be presented with the obtained content
item;
determining, by the online system, an average bid amount
in response to users selecting links included in other content
items presented to users of the set of users by the online system,
each of the other content items being associated with
corresponding bid amounts;
for each opportunity to present the obtained content item
to a user of the online system identified by the online system
during a time interval:
obtaining, by the online system, a model determining a
likelihood of the user performing the action that is performable
on content accessible following selection of a link included in the
obtained content item;
obtaining, by the online system, an additional model
determining a likelihood of the user selecting the link included
in the obtained content item;
determining, by the online system, an expected value to
the online system of presenting the obtained content item to the
user based on the model and the bid amount associated with the
obtained content item;
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

3
determining, by the online system, an additional expected
value to the online system based on the additional model and the
average bid amount;
including, by the online system, the obtained content item
in association with the additional expected value in one or more
selection processes selecting content for presentation to the user;
modifying, by the online system, the model based on
information received from the online system in response to the
one or more selection processes selecting the obtained content
item and the user performing the action associated with the
obtained content item after being presented with the obtained
content item;
determining, by the online system, a rate of change of the
expected value to the online system of presenting the obtained
content item to the user over time; and
responsive to a magnitude of the rate of change of the
expected value to the online system of presenting the obtained
content item to the user over time being less than a threshold
value, providing, by the online system, a suggestion to a
providing user associated with the obtained content item to
increase the bid amount associated with the obtained content
item.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Singh US 2002/0165849 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Lukose US 2006/0041472 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Agarwal US 8,504,437 B1 Aug. 6, 2013
REJECTIONS
In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement. Ans. 27.
The Examiner also withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ans. 27–28.
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

4
The Examiner also withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. See Advisory Action dated January 13, 2020.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to satisfy
the written description requirement. Ans. 28.
Claims 1–4 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh. Final Act. 13.
Claims 5–7 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal, Singh, and Lukose. Final Act. 28.
OPINION
Written Description Rejection
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as lacking an
adequate, original written description. Ans. 28. We agree with Appellant that
paragraphs 7–10 and 44–45 of the Specification provide sufficient details to
reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession
of the claimed subject matter (i.e., “obtaining a model” and “an additional
model”) as of the filing date. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as lacking an adequate, original
written description.

Obviousness Rejection
Claims 1–4 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh. Appellant argues that the cited
references fail to teach,
for each opportunity to present the obtained content item to a user
of the online system identified by the online system during a time
interval: obtaining, by the online system, a model determining a
likelihood of the user performing the action that is performable
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

5
on content accessible following selection of a link included in the
obtained content item,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8.2 Appellant argues that Agarwal’s
selection of a completion of partial text input does not obtain a model for
determining the likelihood of the user performing the action that is
performable on content accessible following selection of a link. Id. at 10.
Instead, Appellant argues, “Agrawal merely determines an input completion
suffix based on the likelihood of a user selecting a link represented by the
textual input that is represented by the combination of the user prefix and the
Agrawal system’s completed suffix.” Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument because as the Examiner
explains, Agrawal’s suggestion engine 604 analyzes user search history data,
which the Examiner finds teaches the claimed “obtaining a model,” and we
agree. Ans. 30 (citing Agrawal 12:49–60). Agrawal also teaches, (see
Agrawal claim 11), that its system determines, “for each of the
advertisement-completion pairs, whether the likelihood that a completion in
the advertisement-completion pair represents the request exceeds a
threshold, and in response to determining that none of the determined
likelihoods exceed the threshold, waiting for more textual input.” Id.
Agrawal explains that “content” provided in response to user input can be of
the form of Web content and/or Web-based advertisements that are
associated with the suggestions. See Agrawal, 4:25–35; Final Act. 13. “Non-
ad Web content can include links to web sites or other content, news,

2 Appellant did not number the Appeal Brief pages. We assign the first page
of the Appeal Brief as page 1.
Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

6
weather, images, video, auctions, related information, answers to questions,
or other information.” Id.; see also Final Act. 14 (citing Agarwal 2:55–59).
Although Appellant argues that Agarwal does not teach determining a
likelihood of the user performing “the action that is performable on content”
following selection of a link, Appellant provides insufficient evidence to
show or explain why the Specification or claims limit “the action that is
performable on content” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, is not encompassed by Agarwal’s teachings identified in the
Final Action and Answer.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–20 fall therewith. See
Appeal Br. 9; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)1 as
failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–4 and 8–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh.
We affirm the rejection of claims 5–7 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Singh, and Lukose.
Because we affirm at least on ground of rejection for each claim on
appeal, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

Appeal 2020-004899
Application 15/299,330

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112(a) Written description 1–20
1–4, 8–17 103 Agarwal, Singh 1–4, 8–17
5–7, 18–20 103 Agarwal, Singh,
Lukose
5–7, 18–20
Overall
Outcome:
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED