Matthew L. Freestone et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 202013723385 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2020) 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. 13/723,385 12/21/2012 Matthew L. Freestone 058083-0857890(2421US02) 1093 72058 7590 05/26/2020 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Adobe Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2020 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATTHEW L. FREESTONE, MARK R. KOOPMAN, FRANK E. SNEDECOR III, KYUNG YEO BHATTACHARJEE, and SCOTT T. PEAD ____________________ Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 17–19, and 21–23, which are all the claims pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to interpreting and manipulating data to find useful patterns or trends. See Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, the application relates to presenting trending information corresponding to items found on a content page. Id. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for presenting, within the context of a web page or other content page, trend analytics data for hyperlinks and any other selectable items displayed within the content page, comprising: displaying, within a user interface, a content page accessed by a plurality of users over a computer network, the content page displaying a plurality of selectable items; receiving, from an analytics data server, measured analytics data for analyzing how the plurality of users engage over periods of time with the selectable items displayed the content page; and in response to receiving, within the user interface, user input selecting a configuration for presenting one or more types of trending information over one or more specified periods of time for a subset of the selectable items displayed on the content page: retrieving the one or more types of trending information for each of the selectable items in the subset, wherein the trending information is based on the measured analytics data and indicates how each of the plurality of users engages with each of the selectable items in the subset at two or more points in time over the one or more specified periods of time; and displaying, within the user interface and within the context of the content page, for each of the selectable items in the subset, a presentation of the corresponding trending information within Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 3 an overlay proximate to and visually associated with the respective selectable item based on said selected configuration, the overlay comprising a visual characteristic indicating a positive or negative trend value of the respective trending information for the respective selectable item. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodwin et al. (US 2013/0263023 A1; Oct. 3, 2013) and Deshpande (US 8,775,611 B1; July 8, 2014). Final Act. 2‒6. Claims 4, 11, 18 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodwin, Deshpande, and Haynes (US 8,341,540 B1; Dec. 25, 2012). Final Act. 6–7. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodwin, Deshpande, and Thomas (US 2011/0320227 A1; Dec. 29, 2011). Final Act. 7–8. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Claim 1 recites “user input selecting a configuration for presenting one or more types of trending information over one or more specified periods of time for a subset of the selectable items displayed on the content page.” Claim 1 further recites “wherein the trending information is based on the measured analytics data and indicates how each of the plurality of users engages with each of the selectable items in the subset at two or more points Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 4 in time over the one or more specified periods of time.” The Examiner finds the combination of Goodwin and Deshpande teaches or suggests these limitations. See Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner finds Goodwin teaches a line graph that can convey trending analytic data during a specified time frame. See Ans. 3 (citing Goodwin ¶ 45). The Examiner further finds the line graph could display an axis representing a time frame and an axis representing the number of mouse-overs of a particular item on a web page over that time frame; the line graph would then provide a visual characteristic of a trend for at least two points. Id. The Examiner provides an exemplary image of such a line graph. Id. at 4. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Goodwin and Deshpande. See Appeal Br. 3–11. In particular, Appellant argues Goodwin fails to teach presenting one or more types of trending information over one or more periods of time, and further fails to teach the analysis of any trending information. See Appeal Br. 3–4, 11. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. As argued by Appellant, Goodwin presents analytics data as a cumulative number of events that occurred during a period of time, not trending data over one or more periods of time. See Appeal Br. 5–8 (citing Goodwin, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 70– 71). Goodwin’s line graph appears to display analytic data in an overlay indicating the total number of events for a selected period of time. See Goodwin Fig. 4, ¶ 45. However, Goodwin does not teach inflection points or individual numbers of a particular event type occurring at more than one single point in Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 5 time, such that trending data can be produced. Further, as Appellant notes, the line graph produced by the Examiner is not taught by Goodwin, and is the result of the Examiner’s speculation based on the teachings of Goodwin. See Reply Br. 2–3; Ans. 4. Goodwin mentions that data could be shown visually by a line graph, but does not explain what information the line graph might show or what the axes of the line graph would represent. Deshpande also fails to teach the disputed limitations, instead teaching a display of a total number of events and a total corresponding score over a specified time period, not events occurring at two or more points in time over the specified time period. See Deshpande Fig. 11, 23:25‒29. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.2 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 8 and 15, which recite commensurate subject matter, or dependent claims 3–5, 7, 10–12, 17–19, and 21–23. See Appeal Br. 11–13. 2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to combine a secondary reference teaching data analysis resulting in visual trend data with the currently applied references. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. Appeal 2018-008868 Application 13/723,385 6 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 103 Goodwin, Deshpande 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 4, 11, 18, 23 103 Goodwin, Deshpande, Haynes 4, 11, 18, 23 21, 22 103 Goodwin, Deshpande, Thomas 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 17–19, 21–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation