Juggle, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2021

2021001087 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
15/096,231 04/11/2016 John Cornelsen JUGG-P0001US-NP 1014
134449 7590 09/22/2021
Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
P.O. Box 2006
Azle, TX 76098
EXAMINER
PADOT, TIMOTHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2021 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):
docketing@gchub.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CORNELSEN
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Juggle, Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims “relate . . . to a system and method for incentivizing
contact interaction by visual presentation and interaction.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for visualizing a user’s interaction with
contacts, the system comprising:
a. a server comprising memory comprising a contact
database comprising
i. retrieved contact records having contact information for
a plurality of contacts associated with the user;
ii. retrieved contact record metadata having information
associated with the contact and prior user to contact interaction;
b. the server configured to assign user selected weighting
factors to the contact records;
c. the server presenting a game metaphor to user over a
visualization interface, the game metaphor simulating an actor
performing a task wherein said actor interacts with a plurality of
distant objects, the visualization interface visualizing the user as
the actor, each contact visualized as one of the plurality of distant
objects, and the visualized distance of each distant object scaled
proportionally according to the assigned weighting factor of the
corresponding contact.
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Swahar US 2011/0296004 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Krishnan US 2013/0191458 A1 July 25, 2013
Dohring US 2014/0220543 A1 Aug. 7, 2014
REJECTIONS2
Claims 7–10 and 20–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5–14, and 18–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable Krishnan and Swahar.
Claims 2–4 and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable Krishnan, Swahar, and Dohring.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
7–10, 20–23 112(b) Indefiniteness
1, 5–14, 18–23 103 Krishnan, Swahar
2–4, 15–17 103 Krishnan, Swahar, Dohring

OPINION
Indefiniteness Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claims 7 and 20 are
not indefinite because the Specification “provides ‘the corresponding
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1–23 under § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
4
links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.’”
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner construes the “activity monitor” of claims 7 and 20
under § 112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation. Final Act. 8. Then, the
Examiner finds that “the written description fails to disclose the
corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed
function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions
corresponding to these elements.” Id. at 9; see also Ans. 4–5.
Paragraph 26 of the Specification3 describes that “activity monitor 40
is a module for communication monitoring activity over a network. The
activity monitor 40 is communicatively interposed inline between the
communication device 12 and the outbound network node. The activity
monitor 40 may contain one or more modules to monitor and log contact
interaction.” Spec. ¶ 26. The Specification also provides two examples
where the module is used to “capture” either “sender and recipient email
addresses” or “sender and recipient telephone numbers.” Id.
Based on the surrounding paragraphs, which describe a server (Spec.
¶ 22), network (id. ¶ 23), database (id. ¶ 24), communications devices (id.
¶ 25), and visualization interface (id. ¶ 27), we construe a “module” to be a
functional unit of software. Consistent with this understanding, the
Specification describes that the activity module captures or copies contact
information for logging. Id. ¶ 26. The Specification thus describes software
that copies data, which would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in
the art as having adequate structure to perform the claimed function, i.e.,
“monitoring activity over a network.”

3 We refer to paragraph numbers listed in the originally-filed Specification.
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
5
For this reason, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 7 and 20. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8–10 and
21–23, which are rejected based on their dependence from claims 7 and 20.

Obviousness Rejection
Claim 1 recites, in part, “the server presenting a game metaphor to
user over a visualization interface, the game metaphor simulating an actor
performing a task wherein said actor interacts with a plurality of distant
objects.” Claim 14 includes a substantially similar limitation.
The Examiner finds these limitations are disclosed in Krishnan at
paragraphs 60–62, 68, 70, 71, 90, 97, 122, 123, 128, and 133, and Figures 6
and 9–12. Final Act. 14.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Krishnan [] does not
disclose or suggest using a game metaphor where the user is visualized as an
actor performing some task,” specifically “simulating an actor performing
a task wherein said actor interacts with a plurality of distant objects.”
Appeal Br. 21, 24.
Upon our review of the cited paragraphs and figures, we do not
discern any representation of “an actor performing a task wherein said actor
interacts with a plurality of distant objects,” as claimed.
The Examiner responds that:
paragraph 72 of Krishnan describes a feature for displaying
actors performing different activities, such as golf or baseball, as
depicted in Figs. 9–11. Similarly, paragraph 86 of Krishnan
describes a feature enabling a user to interact with the interface
to focus on different aspects of the data objects (e.g., time,
location, social relationship), or to perform queries according to
different dimensions or levels displayed for each circle of level,
as exemplified in Figs. 10–11. Therefore, Krishnan teaches
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
6
using a game metaphor where the user is visualized as an actor
performing some task.
Ans. 8. The difficulty with the Examiner’s response, however, is that it fails
to consider the entirety of the argued limitation. More particularly, the
Examiner’s response does not address where Krishnan discloses the server
presenting an actor performing a task that “interacts with a plurality of
distant objects,” as required by claims 1 and 14. Thus, the assertion that a
user may interact with the objects displayed does not establish that the actor
displayed as engaging in a game is interacting with the objects, as recited by
claims 1 and 14.
We are persuaded on the present record that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5–14, and 18–23. Because the
Examiner has not established on the record that the shortcomings of the
combination of Krishman and Swahar are remedied by Dohring, we also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2–4 and 15–17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2021-001087
Application 15/096,231
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–10, 20–23 112(b) Indefiniteness 7–10, 20–23
1, 5–14, 18–
23
103 Krishnan, Swahar 1, 5–14, 18–23
2–4, 15–17 103 Krishnan, Swahar,
Dohring
2–4, 15–17
Overall
Outcome
1–23

REVERSED