Matthew L. Freestone et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2020

2018008868 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
13/723,385 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