Li, Ning et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

13539410 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
13/539,410 06/30/2012 Ning Li 26295-20931 8498
87851 7590 03/31/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
CROSS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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 NING LI, PHILIP ANASTASIOS ZIGORIS,
NEVILLE BOWERS and ROBERT KANG-XING JIN 1
___________

Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10,
and 12–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 14. 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(a). Appellant identifies Facebook, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 3. We note that the Appeal Brief does not include
page numbers. For reference convenience, we designate the cover page of
the Brief as page 1 and number the pages consecutively therefrom, including
the Appendices.
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
2

Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter pertains to
advertising via a social networking system. See Specification ¶1.
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
presenting, by a social networking system, a newsfeed for
display to a promoting user via a client device, the
newsfeed including a story describing an action made to
an object in the social networking system;
accessing, by the social networking system, a user profile
associated with the promoting user and maintained by the
social networking system, the user profile including one
or more object identifiers each corresponding to an object
in the social networking system that the promoting user is
authorized to promote via the newsfeed;
comparing an object identifier for the object to the one or more
object identifiers included in the accessed user profile;
determining that the promoting user is authorized to promote
the action or the object based on the object identifier for
the object matching one of the one or more object
identifiers included in the accessed user profile of the
promoting user;
responsive to determining that the promoting user is authorized
to promote the action or the object, providing a promote
option for display with the story describing the action
made to the object in the newsfeed on the client device of
the promoting user;
responsive to receiving an input corresponding to the promoting
user selecting the promote option via the client device,
prompting the promoting user to provide one or more
parameters to define a sponsored story request for at least
one of the action or the object in the story through an
interface presented via the client device, the one or more
parameters including a bid amount;
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
3

receiving the one or more parameters from the promoting user
to define the sponsored story request through the
interface presented via the client device;
storing the sponsored story request in a database maintained by
the social networking system, the sponsored story request
defining a condition for providing a sponsored story to a
viewing user who has a connection in the social
networking system to an acting user who has interacted
with at least one of the action or the object, the sponsored
story describing the interaction between the acting user
and at least one of the action and the object; and
determining, by the social networking system, whether to
provide the sponsored story for display to the viewing
user based at least in part on the bid amount associated
with the sponsored story request.

References
Name2 Reference Date
Soroca US 2010/0094878 A1 April 15, 2010
Kendall US 2011/0029388 A1 February 3, 2011
Razzaque US 2011/0218847 A1 September 8, 2011
Reis US 2012/0158494 A1 June 21, 2012

Rejection on Appeal3
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, and 12–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kendall, Soroca, Reis, and Razzaque.
Final Action 11–22.

ANALYSIS

2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
3 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10 and 12–18. See Answer 3.
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
4

Rather than reiterate the Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 28, 2017), the
Reply Brief (filed August 7, 2018), the Final Action (mailed June 5, 2017)
and the Answer (mailed June 14, 2018), for the respective details.
Appellant contends the proposed combination of Kendall, Soroca,
Reis, and Razzaque fails to “show or describe” the following limitations of
claim 1: “the user profile including one or more object identifiers each
corresponding to an object in the social networking system that the
promoting user is authorized to promote via the newsfeed” and “determining
that the promoting user is authorized to promote the action or the object
based on the object identifier for the object matching one of the one or more
object
identifiers included in the accessed user profile of the promoting user.”
Appeal Brief 14. The Specification discloses, “[t]o facilitate distribution of
content about an object, certain users of the social networking system may
be authorized to promote the object or an action associated with the object
(‘promoting users’) by identifying content for distribution to other users.”
Specification ¶8 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is flawed
because the Examiner relies upon Razzaque to disclose the disputed
limitations. See Appeal Brief 15–16. Appellant contends that the “claims
recite a process where an organically distributed content item (that has
already been organically distributed among other users of the social
networking system) is ‘promoted’ by the authorized user to further increase
the circulation of this organically distributed content item beyond what
would have been its natural reach without promotion.” Appeal Brief 15–16.
The Examiner finds:
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
5

Kendall, Soroca, and Reis do not explicitly disclose the user is
authorized to promote an item based on the object identifier
system. However, Razzaque discloses a method of distributing
and tracking information across social networks that requires an
authorization process to promote an item (Abstract, 0028). The
combination of the prior art references of Kendall, Soroca, Reis,
and Razzaque to yield a predictable result represents a basis for
obviousness.
Final Action 13, 17.
The Examiner determines that, “Razzaque discloses a type of user
referred to as an ambassador. This user may be the social media profile of
the advertiser that may be linked to the social media profile of the user and
thereby be authorized to promote content, organically or not.” Answer 3–4.
Appellant contends that “since the third party system in Razzaque provides a
registered ambassador user with content to distribute, determining whether
they are authorized to promote that content makes no sense; it makes no
sense for the third party system to provide a user with content they are not
authorized to distribute.” Appeal Brief 16.
Razzaque discloses, “[t]he invention takes information and content
marked to be promoted by a third party using an online application, and
distributes and promotes the information to the social networks of everyone
who is signed up as an ‘ambassador’ for that third party.” Razzaque,
Abstract. Razzaque further discloses, “[a]n ambassador is an individual
who, for any reason, wishes to grant to the third party 206 the ability to use
the online application 209 to distribute and promote information and content
to such ambassador’s accounts on the various social networks 204 of which
the ambassador is a user.” Razzaque ¶ 28.
Razzaque further discloses:
Once the authorization is completed, the ambassador indicates
the preferences that the ambassador has for communicating third
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
6

party information to the applicable social network 305, such as
whether or not the ambassador wants information to
automatically post on his behalf after the ambassador is notified,
or if the ambassador wants to explicitly authorize each
promotion.
Razzaque ¶ 28 (emphasis added).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner relies upon Kendall to teach the claimed object identifiers and
not Razzaque. See Final Action 12–13. The Examiner only relies upon
Razzaque to teach authorizing a user to promote an item. See Final Action
13. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).
Appellant further argues that, “[w]hile enterprises certainly are driven
to ‘maximize profits,’ there is no motivation in Kendall to combine
advertisements based on social networking connections with the
authorization of users in Razzaque to distribute third party content, much
less that the combined result would ‘maximize profits.’” Appeal Brief 18.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
the combination of Kendall, Soroca and Reis by Razaque’s teachings
because:
[E]ach of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of
record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical
ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results
of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined,
the elements perform the same function as they did separately.
Final Action 13, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
7

We find the Examiner’s reasons to combine the references to be
sufficient to establish obviousness based upon the combined teachings. We
note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant contends, “Kendall explicitly calls out as a benefit the fact
that advertising content is generated through actions within the social
networking system, whereas Razzaque describes a totally different system
between a third party and a user to authorize ad distribution.” Appeal Brief
18 (emphasis added). Both Kendall’s and Razzaque’s inventions relate and
are utilized within social networking environments, and therefore are
analogous inventions. See Kendall, Abstract; Razzaque, Abstract. We can
discern nothing within Kendall and Razzaque that would discourage an
artisan from combining the references in the manner in which the Examiner
proposed. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990 (“A reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”).
Appellant argues:
[A]ttempting to combine the authorization described in
Razzaque with the promotion method described in Reis does not
result in the claimed method. Thus, instead of newsfeed
containing content items that the user is authorized to promote
along with content items that the user is not authorized to
promote as claims, the combination of Razzaque does not
describe authorization of users beyond an initial registration step,
and is silent as to distinguishing a user’s authorization to promote
different content items within a social networking system.
Appeal 2018-008247
Application 13/539,410
8

Appeal Brief 19.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because the possible
teachings or suggestions proffered by the combination of Reis and Razzaque
are not limited to Appellant’s inflexible interpretation of the combination of
the references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.4 Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as,
independent claim 9, not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 20. We also
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 4–7, 10,
and 12–18 also not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 20.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9,
10, 12–18
103 Kendall, Soroca,
Reis, Razzaque
1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10, 12–
18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

4 “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.”