International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020003388 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/374,201 12/09/2016 Stephen Fink YOR920160225US2 8391
98841 7590 09/15/2021
Otterstedt, Wallace & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
EXAMINER
YUN, CARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
CTOFFICE@OEKLAW.COM
admin1@oeklaw.com
docket@oeklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN FINK, HOANG ANH LE,
VINOD MUTHUSAMY, RODRIC RABBAH, and
JEREMIAS WERNER
____________________

Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals2 from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 (all of the pending claims). Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2 All references herein to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) are to the
Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on December 16, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material
added):
1. A method comprising:
[A.] receiving, at a cloud platform, a class of feed for an
external feed corresponding to an information source,
said external feed to produce a corresponding class of
events, said class of feed being based on a model;
[B.] receiving, at said cloud platform, an instruction
corresponding to a create operation for said external
feed;
[C.] receiving, at said cloud platform, input corresponding to
parameters expected by said information source;
[D.] selecting, at said cloud platform, a handler from a
plurality of handlers based on said received class of feed
and said received create operation, each handler being
responsive to lifecycle events on said external feed
transparent to a user;
[E.] transferring, to said handler on said cloud platform, said
input;
[F.] generating, at said cloud platform, a unique destination to
receive events for said class of events;
[G.] generating, by said handler on said cloud platform, a
unique request to said information source to generate
events of said class of feed to said unique destination
transparent to said user;
[H.] sending, by said handler on said cloud platform, said
request to said information source; and
[I.] receiving, at said unique destination, events generated
from said information source responsive to said unique
request.

Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

3
REFERENCES3
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Arthursson US 2009/0157627 A1 June 18, 2009
Thaxton US 2013/0018955 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Chow US 2013/0254314 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
Bailey US 2015/0143260 A1 May 21, 2015

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thaxton,
Chow, and Arthursson. Final Act. 3–8.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 2–4, 7–11, 14–18, and 20 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thaxton, Chow,
Arthursson, and Bailey. Final Act. 8–9.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 further herein.

3 All citations herein to patent and pre–grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. Appellant’s contentions we
discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A. Examiner’s Final Action
The Examiner determines:
Regarding claim 1, Thaxton teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a cloud platform, a class of feed for an
external feed corresponding to an information source, said
external feed to produce a corresponding class of events, said
class of feed being based on a model (see ¶[0043]
“a platform for generating an information feed may
be provided. The platform may include a first
interface, such as a feed data layer, that identifies
and retrieves feed items to include in an information
feed. In various implementations, the feed data
layer may include at least two separate components.
A first component may handle queries of one or
more database tables storing feed items. The second
component may receive parameters from a user and
pass the parameters to the first component. In
various implementations, the parameters may
parameterize the query in order to determine which
feed items are relevant to the information feed and
should be included in the information feed.”);
. . .
selecting, at said cloud platform, a handler based on said
received class of feed and said received create operation, each
handler being responsive to lifecycle events on said external feed
(see ¶ [0045]
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

5
“Accordingly, a feed item handler interface
may provide a first user with the ability to create a
new feed item type. The feed item handler interface
may receive an input identifying a new feed item
type, query data relevant to the new feed item type,
and combine the returned data with one or more
feed items during the generation of the intermediary
data structure.” ),
transparently to an end user (see ¶ [0045]
“Once the new feed item type has been
registered with the database service provider, the
new feed item type may be used by a second user.
Thus, the second user need not create a new feed
item type, but instead may access and use the new
feed item type created by the first user.”
–note: because the feed item handler interface allows a user to
create a new feed type, and then later allows another user to use
the created feed type, then it must be that it is transparent to an
end user)[.]
Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis and formatting added).
B. Appellant’s Appeal Brief
Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
B.1.
Appellant contends that:
As defined in the context of the present invention, a “class
of feed” is, for example, a class based on a model, such as a
content-based class, a topic-based class, and the like. Neither
the “feed items” of the information feed of Thaxton nor the “feed
item types” of Thaxton are equivalent to a class based on a
model and thus are not equivalent to the claimed “class of feed.”
In the Response to Arguments, the Examiner quotes
Applicant’s specification (in particular, “[t]hus, in the content-
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

6
based pub-sub model, besides merely expressing interest in the
tag or topic of the message, the properties of the message itself
(content) can be described”) and then infers that, “[s]imilarly,
Thaxton’s feed is [also therefore] a content based feed model.”
Appeal Br. 12 (footnotes omitted).
B.2.
Also, Appellant contends that:
Arthursson discusses selecting a handler from a plurality
of handlers based on operation type. Arthursson does not,
however, disclose or suggest “selecting, at said cloud platform, a
handler from a plurality of handlers based on said received class
of feed and said received create operation.”
. . .
First, Applicant notes that the Examiner has
acknowledged that Thaxton and Chow do not expressly disclose
selecting a handler from a plurality of handlers. Thus, Thaxton
cannot disclose or suggest selecting a handler from a plurality of
handlers based on said received class of feed and said received
create operation.
Second, the alleged teaching in paragraph [0045] of
Thaxton that “the handler based on received class of feed and
received create operation because the feed item handler interface
allows a user to create a new feed type feed” is not equivalent to
“selecting a handler based on said received class of feed and said
received create operation.” Applicant notes that the act of
“selecting” from a plurality of items is an explicit recitation and
should be given patentable weight.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (footnote omitted).
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

7
C. Examiner’s Answer
C.1.
As to Appellant’s argument that the references do not disclose a “class
of feed” based on a model (above section B.1.), the Examiner quotes
paragraphs 43 and 53 of Thaxton and responds:
Th[e] examiner is giving the terms “class of feed” its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification to mean a class of events based on criterion like a
topic based class, which is based on a model. Thaxton teaches a
topic based class, which is a class based on a model, by
describing the ability to specify elements of interest in the feed,
such as relevant feed items (i.e. relevant topics).
Ans. 10–11.
C.2.
As to Appellant’s argument that Arthursson does not disclose or
suggest “selecting . . . a handler from a plurality of handlers based on said
received class of feed and said received create operation” and Thaxton and
Chow do not expressly disclose selecting a handler from a plurality of
handlers (above section B.2.), the Examiner quotes paragraph 45 of Thaxton
and responds:
Examiner disagrees. The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
[Thaxton paragraph 45 omitted]
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

8
Thus, Thaxton teaches the handler based on received class
of feed and received create operation because the feed item
handler interface allows a user to create a new feed type feed.
Further it is possible for the database to create new feed tracking
updates for certain types of records, therefore it is also based on
received class of feed, see ¶ [0116]. Arthursson was cited to
explicitly show the ability to have a selection of plurality
handlers, as shown in ¶ [0167].
Ans. 12.
C. Case Law
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
D. Panel’s Analysis
Claim 1 recites [A.] “receiving . . . a class of feed for an external feed
corresponding to an information source,” and [D.] “selecting . . . a handler
from a plurality of handlers based on said received class of feed and said
received create operation.”
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

9
As to Appellant’s argument (above section B.1.) that the references do
not disclose a “class of feed” based on a model, we agree with the Examiner
that:
Thaxton teaches a topic based class, which is a class based on a
model, by describing the ability to specify elements of interest in
the feed, such as relevant feed items (i.e. relevant topics).
Ans. 11.
However, ultimately, we agree with Appellant that more is required.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Thaxton processes data utilizing a
class of feed based on a model, we find that claim 1 requires more. We
conclude that claim 1 requires more than just having and utilizing a class of
feed. Rather, the claim 1 limitation “receiving . . . a class of feed” requires
receiving a class that characterizes that feed (Spec. ¶ 95). That is, we
conclude claim 1 requires receiving an indication of the class (i.e., an
indication of the data structure to be used), rather than merely receiving data
in a form corresponding to a class based on a model.
As to Appellant’s argument (above section B.2.) that Arthursson does
not disclose or suggest “selecting . . . a handler from a plurality of handlers
based on said received class of feed and said received create operation” and
Thaxton and Chow do not expressly disclose selecting a handler from a
plurality of handlers, we agree with the Examiner that these individual
arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant attacks each reference for
lacking limitations for which a different reference was cited. “[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Keller, 642 F.2d at
426.
Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

10
However, for the reasons discussed directly supra, we ultimately
conclude that more is required in the rejection because the references have
not been shown to disclose the claimed “received class of feed.” We
conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that there is currently
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that
Thaxton, Chow, or Arthursson, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or
otherwise render obvious the “receiving . . . a class of feed” and “received
class of feed” limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

Appeal 2020-003388
Application 15/374,201

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–11,
14–18, 20
103 Thaxton, Chow,
Arthursson
1–4, 7–11,
14–18, 20
5, 6, 12, 13,
19
103 Thaxton, Chow,
Arthursson, Bailey
5, 6, 12, 13,
19
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED