NARA LOGICS, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 24, 20212019006845 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation