Global Tel*Link CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 20212021001939 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/723,489 10/03/2017 Michael Kenneth Patterson 3210.2030000 5458 26111 7590 10/04/2021 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER DEWAN, KAMAL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 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): e-office@sternekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL KENNETH PATTERSON ____________________ Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,4891 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 An oral hearing was held September 23, 2021. A transcript will be made of Record in due course. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Global Tel *Link Corporation, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,489 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to a social media monitoring system that identifies third party social media accounts and assigns a relevance score to these accounts to identify the frequency of interaction between the third party account and an offender account. Spec. para. 31. Based on the confidence score and/or relevance score, the social media monitoring system generates a graphical user interface with links to access the retrieved social media accounts. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A social media monitoring system, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors and/or circuits coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive identification data related to an individual accused of committing a crime; search a criminal history record database using the identification data for a criminal history record related to the individual; generate a search packet including the criminal history record and identification data; transmit the search packet to a first social media server and a second social media server different from the first social media server to receive a first social media account associated with the individual from the first social media server and a second social media account associated with the individual from the second social media server; identify a third social media account corresponding to another individual; determine a first account score for the first social media account, wherein the first account score is indicative of the amount of information associated with the first social media Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,489 3 account confirmed by the identification data and the criminal history record and a first frequency of user activity corresponding to the first social media account; determine a second account score for the second social media account, wherein the second account is indicative of the amount of information associated with the second social media account confirmed by the identification data and the criminal history record and a second frequency of user activity corresponding to the second social media account; and determine a third account score based on a frequency of interaction measured between the first social media account and the third social media account; generate a graphical user interface displaying the first social media account with a first account preview displaying information from the first social media account, the second social media account with a second account preview displaying information from the second social media account, and the third social media account with a third account preview displaying information from the third social media account, wherein the first account preview, the second account preview, and the third account preview are displayed in a list of social media accounts ranked by account score based on the first frequency, the second frequency, and the third frequency. Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,489 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Daya US 2013/0232159 Al Sept. 5, 2013 Torgersrud US 2014/0280559 Al Sept. 18, 2014 Florian US 2014/0303993 Al Oct. 9, 2014 Bergman US 2015/0234830 Al Aug. 20, 2015 Roof US 2017/0270628 Al Sept. 21, 2017 Wang US 2017/0316519 Al Nov. 2, 2017 Hüffner US 2017/0358032 Al Dec. 14, 2017 Liu US 2018/0091611 Al Mar. 29, 2018 Foster US 2019/0068632 Al Feb. 28, 2019 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–4, 6–8, 16–22 103 Daya, Florian, Foster, Wang 5 103 Daya, Florian, Foster, Wang, Bergman 9–15 103 Daya, Torgersrud, Foster, Wang, Roof ANALYSIS Appellant argues inter alia, that contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Foster does not teach “determin[ing] a third account score based on a frequency of interaction measured between the first social media account and the third social media account” as required by independent claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br. 16–17. In particular, Appellant argues that Foster’s teaching of security risks including “imposter accounts, phishing links, and posted malware” constitute individual events, and not frequency of actions such as “a frequency of interaction measured between the first social media account Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,489 5 and the third social media account,” as required by independent claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing Foster paras. 87, 188). We agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner notes that Foster teaches an administrator enrolling the organization into a security platform that monitors the data posted to the one or more social network pages maintained by the organization and alerting a protected social entity to posts or other actions carried out by suspect social entities that have been identified as impersonators, and based on these teachings, the Examiner finds that Foster teaches “frequency of interaction,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 9 (citing Foster paras. 63 and 193). We do not agree that Foster teaches or suggests “frequency of interactions” in the Examiner’s cited paragraphs, let alone the limitation of “determine a third account score based on a frequency of interaction measured between the first social media account and the third social media account” recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 16. In other words, we find no teaching or suggestion of “frequency of interactions” between the first social media account and the third social media account in the portions of Foster relied upon by the Examiner. We agree with Appellant that Foster teaches that “[a] protected social entity may be alerted to posts or other actions carried out by suspect social entities that have been identified as impersonators of the protected social entity.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Foster para. 63). We also agree with Appellant that Foster teaches that “[t]he admin user may enroll the organization into a security platform that monitors the data posted to the one or more social network pages maintained by the organization.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Foster para. Appeal 2021-001939 Application 15/723,489 6 193). We agree with Appellant that this data does not correspond to the claimed “frequency of interaction” because the data includes the content of the posts, and not the frequency of the posts. The Examiner relies upon the same portions of Foster as purportedly teaching the disputed limitation with respect to independent claim 9. Ans. 18–19. Claim 9 recites “frequency of inmate interaction with the first, second, and third social media accounts.” See claim 9. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant in the Briefs, as discussed above, we find the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed “frequency of interaction” measured between the first social media account and the third social media account recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 16 and 9. The additional references do not cure the above cited deficiency. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–8, 16–22 103 Daya, Florian, Foster, Wang 1–4, 6–8, 16–22 5 103 Daya, Florian, Foster, Wang, Bergman 5 9–15 103 Daya, Torgersrud, Foster, Wang, Roof 9–15 Overall Outcome 1–22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation