Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2021

2020005164 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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.
14/752,040 06/26/2015 Anand Sumatilal Bhalgat 108282.020140 5560
169063 7590 02/08/2021
BakerHostetler / Facebook
Cira Centre 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
TOKARCZYK, CHRISTOPHER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2021 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.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 CHINMAY DEEPAK KARANDE
____________

Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Anand Sumatilal Bhalgat and Chinmay Deepak Karande (Appellant2)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–5, 9–15,
and 19–26, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of presenting content to users of a
social networking system. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[1] receiving a request for displaying a feed of content
in a graphical user interface of a social networking
system
for a mobile device for a user of the social networking
system,
the feed of content
comprising multiple slots
and
scrollable in a first direction for displaying
multiple content items;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed February 27, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 25,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 28, 2020), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 20, 2019).
2 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. 2.

Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

3

[2] identifying candidate advertisement requests (“ad requests”)
eligible for inclusion in the feed of content,
each candidate ad request including an advertisement and
a bid amount;
[3] selecting, from the candidate ad requests, a set of two or
more advertisements eligible to be included in a scrollable
content unit for presentation in the feed of content,
[3.1] the scrollable content unit including a display area
fit to occupy one of the multiple slots in the feed of
content,
[3.2] the display area being a first portion of an entire
area occupied by the feed of content,
[3.3] the entire area of the feed of content comprising a
second portion occupied by one or more other slots in the
feed of content,
[3.4] wherein the display area of the scrollable content
unit
(i) is configured to initially display advertisements
fewer than all advertisements in the set,
(ii) is scrollable in a second direction to modify
display of advertisements selected from the set, the
second direction different from the first direction,
(iii) is scrollable while the second portion of the
entire area occupied by the feed of content remains
spatially stationary;
[4] computing an expected amount of interaction by the user
with the scrollable content unit,
wherein an entire order of advertisements
in the scrollable content unit in which the
advertisements are spatially arranged in the
scrollable content unit
is undetermined
when the expected amount of interaction is
computed;
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

4

[5] selecting a slot of the multiple slots in the feed of content
for displaying the scrollable content unit
based at least in part on the expected amount of
interaction;
[6] selecting other content items to occupy other slots in the
feed of content for display;
[7] determining a score
associated with each advertisement
in the set to be included in the scrollable content
unit
based at least in part on the bid amounts
of the candidate ad requests associated with the
advertisements
in the set to be included in the scrollable content
unit;
[8] determining the entire order of the advertisements
in the set in which the advertisements are spatially
arranged in the scrollable content unit
based at least in part on the scores associated with the
advertisements in the set;
and
[9] presenting the feed of content
in the graphical user interface
with the scrollable content unit positioned at the selected
slot
and
with the advertisements arranged in the scrollable content
unit in the order determined.
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

5

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Flynn US 2013/0151959 A1 June 13, 2013
Boland US 2013/0204710 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Lewis US 2015/0007101 A1 Jan. 1, 2015
Claims 1–5, 9–15, and 19–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boland, Lewis, and Flynn.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Boland
01. Boland is directed to social networking, and in particular to
providing display items to users of a social networking system.
Boland para. 1.
02. Boland describes sequencing display items in a way that
maximizes or otherwise increases the influence of the display
items. The sequencing of display items may increase brand
awareness, brand influence, brand attitude, ad recall, brand
preference, friend awareness, intent, and favorability. Boland
para. 3.
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

6

03. Boland describes social networking selecting a display item to
display to a viewing user based on information about the viewing
user and a display sequence tree associated with an ad campaign.
The display items include advertisements, sponsored stories, and
content objects created by users. The information about the user
includes the viewing user’s interactions, the viewing user’s
demographic information, and the viewing user’s inferred
characteristics. A display sequence tree associated with an ad
campaign is a hierarchical arrangement of nodes that correspond
to display items and represent possible sequences of display items.
An ad campaign includes at least one request for a display item.
Boland para. 4.
04. Boland describes a sequence module selecting an ad campaign
that has targeting criteria that matches the viewing user’s profile
information. An ad campaign is selected based in part on if the
viewing user’s profile information indicates that the viewing user
is a fan of the brand, product, or service associated with the ad
campaign; on if the viewing user’s profile information indicates
that the viewing user has an affinity coefficient above a threshold
for the brand, product, or service associated with the ad campaign;
on if the viewing user’s profile information indicates that the
viewing user has an affinity coefficient above a threshold for a
similar or related brand, product, or service of the ad campaign;
and on the expected value for the ad campaign. For example, the
sequence module may select a set of candidate ad campaigns,
determine the expected value for each of the ad campaigns, and
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

7

select the ad campaign with the highest expected value. Boland
para. 16.
05. Boland describes a sequence module retrieving or generating a
display sequence tree for an ad campaign and/or a viewing user.
A display sequence tree defines one or more sequences of display
items to display to a viewing user based on the viewing user’s
data. More specifically, a display sequence tree is a hierarchical
arrangement of nodes that correspond to display items and
represent possible sequences of display items. A branch of a
display sequence tree having two or more nodes represents a
possible sequence of display items. Each node of sequence
display tree includes information identifying one or more display
items, selection criteria, and display criteria. Boland para. 17.
Lewis
06. Lewis is directed to selection of content items. Lewis para. 1.
07. Lewis describes information, such as text, images, and videos,
being displayed in a window of a display screen. In some cases,
all of the relevant information is visible in the window. In other
cases, however, only a portion of the relevant information is
visible in the window. For example, only a portion of the
information may be visible in the window when the viewable size
of the window is too small to display all of the information in a
manner that can be easily viewed and manipulated by a user. To
view a portion of the information that is not visible, the window
may be scrolled to bring the information into view. Lewis para. 2.
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

8

08. Lewis describes information that is presently visible in a
window (i.e., without the need for scrolling to be viewed) being
referred to as above-the-fold (ATF) information. Information that
can be viewed only by scrolling the information in the window
may be referred to as below-the-fold (BTF) information.
Providers of content may present certain information, for example,
information that is high in rank, priority, relevance, significance,
or importance, above the fold since ATF information is visibly
prominent without the need for scrolling. For example,
advertisers may prefer to present advertisements in the area that is
above the fold because such advertisements would be visible to a
user without scrolling. Lewis para. 3.
09. Lewis describes selecting content for display in a content slot
of a content page based on a predicted performance of the content
slot. The performance is predicted based on an active view scroll
distance of the content slot with respect to the content page. The
active view scroll distance corresponds to a number of pixels that
the content page would have to be scrolled downward to change
visibility of content displayed in the content slot from
substantially entirely visible to less than entirely visible. Lewis
para. 4.
10. Lewis describes receiving a request for content to be presented
in a specified content slot of a specified content page; calculating
an active view scroll distance of the specified content slot with
respect to the specified content page, the active view scroll
distance corresponding to a measurement of a distance that the
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

9

specified content page would have to be scrolled to change
visibility of content displayed in the specified content slot by a
specified amount; performing an auction of content items utilizing
in part the active view scroll distance; and providing one or more
content items in response to the request and as a result of the
auction. Lewis para. 5.
11. Lewis describes how performing the auction may include
predicting performance of the content items. Lewis para. 6.
Flynn
12. Flynn is directed to social networking system user interfaces
and, in particular, to mobile and tactile interfaces for presenting
social networking system information. Flynn para. 1.
13. Flynn describes a tactile interface that enables users of a social
networking system to navigate and view the social networking
system data. The tactile interface allows users to scroll through
lists of social networking system stories, where each story
includes a list of content. The lists of stories may be navigated on
the vertical axis of the tactile interface, while the lists of content
within the stories may be navigated independently on the
horizontal axis. The navigation may be implemented as scrolling
on a touch screen interface, where scrolling is activated by vertical
or horizontal swipes by the user. Flynn para. 4.
14. Flynn describes the tactile interface may be considered a list of
lists. It is a list of stories separated by time period separators,
where each story comprises a list of content (in this case photos
and news stories). The tactile interface allows viewing users to
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

10

scroll through content both horizontally and vertically using a
touch-based interface. Stories and content may be partially
occluded by the boundaries of the screen or tactile interface and
users may use scrolling to reveal new stories and content. Flynn
para. 31.
ANALYSIS
As to all claims except claims 22 and 25, we adopt the Examiner’s
analysis and determinations from Final Action 3–18 and Answer 3–16 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief arguments.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner has
not provided a reference that describes any rules on selecting the order of
content items spatially.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that Boland describes displaying only one content
item at a time, and Lewis and Flynn fail to describe rules. Id. But, as the
Examiner answered,
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations
of references. . . . [T]he rejections explain how both Lewis
and Flynn teach displaying content spatially, and why it would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
combine the techniques for selecting content based on
performance of content slots in scrollable displays taught by
Lewis and the multidimensional interfaces for presenting
content as taught by Flynn with the systems for sequencing
display items in a social networking systems disclosed by
Boland to arrive at the claimed invention. More specifically,
Boland discloses techniques for making an ordering of
advertisements of a campaign to improve the effectiveness of
the ad campaign.
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

11

Ans. 6. (citations omitted). The limitation 8 at issue recites only
“determining the entire order of the advertisements in the set in which the
advertisements are spatially arranged in the scrollable content unit.” This
limitation does not define or narrow how such spatial arrangement is
recorded, or even the degree of precision and accuracy of the arrangement.
More to the point, this limitation determines an ordering, not an arrangement
per se.
Boland’s display sequence tree on its face describes rules implied by
the tree branching as to how content is ordered. As content presented in two
dimensions on a screen necessarily results in some spatial arrangement,
Boland’s tree’s implied rules determine the order that content appears in its
ultimate spatial arrangement. Whether Boland physically presents one item
at a time is beside the point in an obviousness rejection, where other
references complete the analysis. Boland provides the reasoning for
ordering the content as claimed in a display in Lewis and Flynn.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “limitations recite
highly specific selection rules and the order of how the rules are applied in
filling the entire feed of content. These highly specific selection rules are
nowhere to be found in Boland or any cited references.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant refers to the limitations of “computing an expected amount of
interaction by the user with the scrollable content unit, wherein an entire
order of advertisements in the scrollable content unit in which the
advertisements are spatially arranged in the scrollable content unit is
undetermined when the expected amount of interaction is computed”
(limitation 4), “selecting a slot of the multiple slots in the feed of content for
displaying the scrollable content unit based at least in part on the expected
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

12

amount of interaction” (limitation 5), and “determining the entire order of
the advertisements in the set in which the advertisements are spatially
arranged in the scrollable content unit” (limitation 8).
These rules are specific only in the sense they are specified using
words. The recited steps are much broader than implied, and the art fits
within their scope. Boland uses the expected amount of interaction among
its factors in constructing its tree, which is constructed prior to spatially
determining the order at the time the tree is applied to actual content. The
selection of a slot in Boland is based on the tree branch being traversed, and
the branches are again determined based on expected amount of interaction.
Boland’s tree similarly determines the entire order of content.
As to separately argued claim 22, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner’s “statement is only a description of the type of
information that is included in a request.” Reply Br. 6. None of the
references appears to describe a policy setting a minimum number of non-
advertisement content items presented in the feed of content between the
scrollable content unit and another advertisement, and setting a minimum
distance of slots between the scrollable content unit and another
advertisement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–5, 9–15, 19–21, 23, 24, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Boland, Lewis, and Flynn is proper.
The rejection of claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boland, Lewis, and Flynn is improper.
Appeal 2020-005164
Application 14/752,040

13

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–5, 9–15, 19–21, 23, 24, and 26 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22 and 25 is reversed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–15,
19–26
103 Boland,
Lewis, Flynn
1–5, 9–15,
19–21, 23, 24,
26
22, 25

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED IN PART