NARA LOGICS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 24, 2021

2019006845 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
14/687,720 04/15/2015 Nathan R. WILSON 451310US 7639
146018 7590 02/24/2021
Gardella Grace P.A.
80 M Street SE, 1st Floor
Washington, DC 20003
EXAMINER
COUGHLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2021 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):
info@gardellagrace.com
ngrace@gardellagrace.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATHAN R. WILSON, EMILY A. HUESKE,
and THOMAS C. COPEMAN
____________

Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 2 and 4–21, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application.2 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 the real party in interest as Nara
Logics, Inc. Appeal Br. 6.
2 Claims 1 and 3 have been canceled previously.
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the invention and reads as follows (disputed
limitation in italics):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at least one server device, attribute data for a
plurality of users and location data, the attribute data relating to
a plurality of attributes of a user, user affinity data, and to at
least a first venue for which the user has an affinity;
receiving, at the at least one server device, venue data for
a plurality of venues, the venue data relating to a plurality of
attributes of the venues and further including a location of at
least one venue;
receiving, at the at least one server device, review data
for the plurality of venues, the review data reflecting the
affinity of a plurality of reviewers for the plurality of venues;
spatially segmenting, at the at least one server device,
geographic data into a plurality of grids, each grid being
assigned a reference location indicating a geographic location
within the grid;
identifying, at the at least one server device and for each
grid and each venue located within a corresponding grid, offset
location data indicating an offset distance between a location of
the venue and the reference location of the corresponding grid;
encoding, at the at least one server device, the venue
data of each venue as an encoded item of data containing at
least one predetermined value for each venue attribute and the
offset location data;
identifying, at the at least one server device, one or more
local venues based on the location data;
comparing, at the at least one server device, encoded
venue data for each identified local venue to the user affinity
data to generate a filtered set of venues;
accessing, via the at least one server device, a data
network comprising nodes corresponding at least to the
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720

3
plurality of venues and the plurality of reviewers and further
comprising links between said nodes, each link reflecting a
strength of an interrelationship between at least two nodes,
wherein at least a plurality of the link strengths are a function of
at least the review data and the venue data and are further a
function of both content-based and collaborative
interrelationships;
determining, at the at least one server device and based
on the link strengths and at least one venue parameter, a
plurality of recommended venues from the filtered set of venues
which have the strongest links to a user;
generating, at the at least one server device,
recommendation data comprising at least one recommended
venue; and
serving to a client device the recommendation data for
display on a screen of the client device.
See Appeal Br. 77–79 (Claims App.).

Claims 2 and 4–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boyns (US 2010/0076968 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2010), Lyle
(US 2010/0076951 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2010), Petty (US 2009/0119258 Al;
pub. May 7, 2009), and Rasanen (US 2008/0214210 Al; pub. Sept. 4, 2008).
Final Act. 16–43.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
Appellant’s arguments concerning unpatentability under § 103. We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 because
the proposed combination of the references does not teach or suggest
“spatially segmenting . . . geographic data into a plurality of grids, each grid
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720

4
being assigned a reference location indicating a geographic location within
the grid,” “identifying . . . for each grid and each venue located within a
corresponding grid, offset location data indicating an offset distance between
a location of the venue and the reference location of the corresponding grid,”
and “encoding . . . the venue data of each venue as an encoded item of data
containing at least one predetermined value for each venue attribute and the
offset location data.”3 Appeal Br. 50–51. Appellant asserts that similar
limitations are recited in independent claim 14. Appeal Br. 51. Appellant
specifically argues “Boyns simply teaches defining or identifying a
boundary or area such as ‘a radius’, ‘a longitude/latitude coordinate’, ‘a
predefined identifier or geographic code, such as a ZIP code, a municipality
name, a city name, and the like’, none of which teach or suggest segmenting
data into a plurality of grids.” Appeal Br. 62.
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner relies on Boyns as disclosing the
steps of spatially segmenting geographical data into a plurality of grids, and
encoding offset location data for each grid and each venue. See Final Act.
17–18 (citing Boyns ¶¶ 9, 46, 57, 74). The Examiner further responds to
Appellant’s argument regarding the disputed limitation by explaining
Boyns at Fig. 3 shows profiled regions that includes points of
interest (i.e. geographic elements 252-264 on a map) that
correspond to the claimed plurality of grids. In Boyns, the
profile module identifies and organizes a set of points of
interests for a region. The points of interest are segments of the
profiled regions. Each point of interest includes geotag data
(i.e. first school 252 is associated with geotag data 114, [0047]
of Boyns); therefore each point of interest is assigned a

3 Appellant argues other recited limitations, which are not addressed here
because the issue related to the above mentioned limitations is dispositive of
the appeal.
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720

5
reference location indicating a geographic location within the
grid.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s characterization of
Boyns’ geographical elements 252–264 as grids is unreasonable because
such interpretation does not conform to the plain meaning of the word
“grid.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant presents dictionary definitions for the
dispute term that require “a network of uniformly spaced horizontal and
perpendicular lines (for locating points on a map), which is also described in
Appellant’s Specification in a similar way. Reply Br. 4 (citing Merriam-
Webster Dictionary; Spec., Fig. 33, 81:30–82:10).
We agree with Appellant that Boyns’ disclosure of profiled regions
that include geographical elements does not teach or suggest the claimed
spatially segmenting geographical data into a plurality of grids for the
reasons provided by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 61–63; see also Reply
Br. 2–5. We also observe that in relying on Ranasen’s teachings of a generic
location grid, the Examiner provided no teachings of the recited spatially
segmenting geographical data into grids that would cure the deficiency of
Boyns stated above. See Final Act. 23–24 (finding Ranasen’s paragraphs 64
and 65 disclose “identifying, at the at least one server device and for each
grid and each venue located within a corresponding grid, offset location
data”); Ans. 5–6 (stating that “[t]he trimmed user grid value corresponds to
the claimed offset location”). Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Boyns with Lyle, Petty, and Rasanen
teaches or suggests all the recited limitations, and particularly, the step of
“spatially segmenting, at the at least one server device, geographic data into
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720

6
a plurality of grids, each grid being assigned a reference location indicating a
geographic location within the grid,” as recited in claim 2.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim
2. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior
art references to cure the above-identified deficiency. Therefore, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, other
independent claim which recites similar limitations (see claim 14), as well as
the remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 77–84 (Claims
App.).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4–21 103 Boyns, Lyle, Petty,
Rasanen
2, 4–21

REVERSED

Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte NATHAN R. WILSON, EMILY A. HUESKE,
and THOMAS C. COPEMAN
____________
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
Technology Center 2100
____________
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 2 and 4–21, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the invention and reads as follows (disputed
limitation in italics):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at least one server device, attribute data
for a plurality of users and location data, the attribute data
relating to a plurality of attributes of a user, user affinity
data, and to at least a first venue for which the user has
an affinity;
receiving, at the at least one server device, venue
data for a plurality of venues, the venue data relating to a
plurality of attributes of the venues and further including a
location of at least one venue;
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
2
receiving, at the at least one server device, review
data for the plurality of venues, the review data reflecting
the affinity of a plurality of reviewers for the plurality of
venues;
spatially segmenting, at the at least one server
device, geographic data into a plurality of grids, each grid
being assigned a reference location indicating a
geographic location within the grid;
identifying, at the at least one server device and for
each grid and each venue located within a corresponding
grid, offset location data indicating an offset distance
between a location of the venue and the reference
location of the corresponding grid;
encoding, at the at least one server device, the
venue data of each venue as an encoded item of data
containing at least one predetermined value for each
venue attribute and the offset location data;
identifying, at the at least one server device, one or
more local venues based on the location data;
comparing, at the at least one server device,
encoded venue data for each identified local venue to the
user affinity data to generate a filtered set of venues;
accessing, via the at least one server device, a data
network comprising nodes corresponding at least to the
plurality of venues and the plurality of reviewers and
further comprising links between said nodes, each link
reflecting a strength of an interrelationship between at
least two nodes, wherein at least a plurality of the link
strengths are a function of at least the review data and
the venue data and are further a function of both content-
based and collaborative interrelationships;
determining, at the at least one server device and
based on the link strengths and at least one venue
parameter, a plurality of recommended venues from the
filtered set of venues which have the strongest links to a
user;
generating, at the at least one server device,
recommendation data comprising at least one
recommended venue; and
serving to a client device the recommendation data
for display on a screen of the client device.
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
3
See Appeal Br. 77–79 (Claims App.).
Claims 2 and 4–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boyns (US 2010/0076968 Al; pub. Mar. 25,
2010), Lyle (US 2010/0076951 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2010), Petty (US
2009/0119258 Al; pub. May 7, 2009), and Rasanen (US
2008/0214210 Al; pub. Sept. 4, 2008). Final Act. 16–43.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we concur with Appellant’s arguments concerning
unpatentability under § 103. We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
because the proposed combination of the references does not teach
or suggest “spatially segmenting . . . geographic data into a plurality
of grids, each grid being assigned a reference location indicating a
geographic location within the grid,” “identifying . . . for each grid and
each venue located within a corresponding grid, offset location data
indicating an offset distance between a location of the venue and the
reference location of the corresponding grid,” and “encoding . . . the
venue data of each venue as an encoded item of data containing at
least one predetermined value for each venue attribute and the offset
location data.” Appeal Br. 50–51. Appellant asserts that similar
limitations are recited in independent claim 14. Appeal Br. 51.
Appellant specifically argues “Boyns simply teaches defining or
identifying a boundary or area such as ‘a radius’, ‘a longitude/latitude
coordinate’, ‘a predefined identifier or geographic code, such as a ZIP
code, a municipality name, a city name, and the like’, none of which
teach or suggest segmenting data into a plurality of grids.” Appeal
Br. 62.
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
4
Br. 62.
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner relies on Boyns as disclosing
the steps of spatially segmenting geographical data into a plurality of
grids, and encoding offset location data for each grid and each
venue. See Final Act. 17–18 (citing Boyns ¶¶ 9, 46, 57, 74). The
Examiner further responds to Appellant’s argument regarding the
disputed limitation by explaining
Boyns at Fig. 3 shows profiled regions that includes
points of interest (i.e. geographic elements 252-264 on a
map) that correspond to the claimed plurality of grids. In
Boyns, the profile module identifies and organizes a set of
points of interests for a region. The points of interest are
segments of the profiled regions. Each point of interest
includes geotag data (i.e. first school 252 is associated
with geotag data 114, [0047] of Boyns); therefore each
point of interest is assigned a reference location indicating
a geographic location within the grid.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s characterization of
Boyns’ geographical elements 252–264 as grids is unreasonable
because such interpretation does not conform to the plain meaning of
the word “grid.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant presents dictionary definitions
for the dispute term that require “a network of uniformly spaced
horizontal and perpendicular lines (for locating points on a map),
which is also described in Appellant’s Specification in a similar way.
Reply Br. 4 (citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Spec., Fig. 33,
81:30–82:10).
We agree with Appellant that Boyns’ disclosure of profiled
regions that include geographical elements does not teach or suggest
the claimed spatially segmenting geographical data into a plurality of
grids for the reasons provided by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 61–63;
see also Reply Br. 2–5. We also observe that in relying on
Ranasen’s teachings of a generic location grid, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
5
provided no teachings of the recited spatially segmenting
geographical data into grids that would cure the deficiency of Boyns
stated above. See Final Act. 23–24 (finding Ranasen’s paragraphs
64 and 65 disclose “identifying, at the at least one server device and
for each grid and each venue located within a corresponding grid,
offset location data”); Ans. 5–6 (stating that “[t]he trimmed user grid
value corresponds to the claimed offset location”). Accordingly, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Boyns with Lyle, Petty, and Rasanen teaches or suggests all the
recited limitations, and particularly, the step of “spatially segmenting,
at the at least one server device, geographic data into a plurality of
grids, each grid being assigned a reference location indicating a
geographic location within the grid,” as recited in claim 2.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s proposed combination does not teach or suggest the
recited features of claim 2. The Examiner has not identified any
teachings in the other applied prior art references to cure the above-
identified deficiency. Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, other independent claim
which recites similar limitations (see claim 14), as well as the
remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 77–84
(Claims App.).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4–21 103 Boyns, Lyle, Petty,
Rasanen
2, 4–21
REVERSED
Appeal 2019-006845
Application 14/687,720
6
APJ:
MDS
JK
JLD
PL:
em