Luke St. Clair et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

14064079 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
14/064,079 10/25/2013 Luke St. Clair 079894.1713 4320
91230 7590 12/16/2019
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P./FACEBOOK INC.
2001 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 900
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
SONG, DAEHO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
judy.wan@bakerbotts.com
ptomail1@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUKE ST. CLAIR, DANIEL WEAVER, JOSHUA VAN
DYKE WATZMAN, and DANIEL SCHAFER
Appeal 2018-002778
Application 14/064,079
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Facebook, Inc. (“Appellant”1) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-002778
Application 14/064,079

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to a “social-networking system” in which the
“determination of the order for the content boards may be based on the cover
feed interaction history, recency of content included in the content boards,
popularity of the content, relevance of content to the user, or device-based
events.” Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
by a computer server machine, receiving a cover feed
interaction history from a client device associated with a user of
a social-networking system;
by the computer server machine, retrieving, from a server-
side data store, user information related to the user;
by the computer server machine, determining a ranking for
each of a plurality of content boards in a queue of content boards
associated with a cover feed interface based on the cover feed
interaction history, the user information related to the user, and
device information related to the client device, wherein each of
the content boards occupies substantially an entire displayable
region of the client device when displayed by the client device;
by the computer server machine, downgrading, for at least
one of the content boards in the queue that has been displayed
by the client device, the ranking of the at least one of the content
boards based at least in part on the display of the at least one of
the content boards; and
by the computer server machine, sending the ranking for
each of one or more of the content boards in the queue to the
client device.
Appeal 2018-002778
Application 14/064,079

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Howes (US 2012/0023390 A1; Jan. 26, 2012), Chaudhri (US 2009/0021486
A1; Jan. 22, 2009), White (US 2010/0095208 A1; Apr. 15, 2010), and Du
(US 2013/01177451 A1; May 9, 2013). Final Act. 2.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Du teaches or suggests “downgrading,
for at least one of the content boards in the queue that has been displayed by
the client device, the ranking of the at least one of the content boards based
at least in part on the display of the at least one of the content boards,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “downgrading, for at least one of the content boards in
the queue that has been displayed by the client device, the ranking of the at
least one of the content boards based at least in part on the display of the at
least one of the content boards.”
The Examiner relies on Du paragraphs 60–61 for this limitation. Final
Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5. Appellant argues “the Office Action does not contain
evidence or reasoning supporting the Examiner’s assertion that Du discloses
the based at least in part on the display of the at least one of the content
boards limitation other than a conclusory statement.” Appeal Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant. The Specification discloses “the social-
networking system may determine an order for display of the content boards
in the cover feed so as to ensure that the ‘freshest’ and most interesting
content is promoted in the queue of content boards for display to the user.”
Appeal 2018-002778
Application 14/064,079

4
Spec. ¶ 69. “For example, once the user has viewed particular content, the
order of the content boards may be updated, so that fresh content is
promoted in the queue ahead of previously-viewed content.” Id. This is
reflected in claim 1 downgrading content that has already been displayed.
Here, Du discloses “ranking and filtering, according to the user rank
identifier.” Du ¶ 60. The Examiner quotes Du as disclosing that “the web
page server . . . selects corresponding content for displaying” and “may even
display content in a same web page based on different user rank identifier.”
Ans. 5 (quoting Du ¶ 60). The Examiner then concludes: “In other words,
Du expressly teaches that ranking and filtering is performed based on
selected web content to be displayed.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the
Examiner relies on Du teaching downgrading based on content “to be
displayed” (i.e., will display in the future), whereas the claimed “based . . .
on the display of the at least one of the content boards” refers back to “at
least one of the content boards in the queue that has been displayed” (i.e.,
was displayed in the past). The Examiner fails to sufficiently demonstrate
that Du teaches or suggests downgrading based on such display of content.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, and 17, and their dependent claims 2–10, 12–16, and 18–20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under § 103 is reversed.
Claims
Rejected Basis References Affirmed Reversed
1–20 § 103 Howes, Chaudhri, White, Du 1–20
REVERSED