Samuel Koppes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

14042564 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
14/042,564 09/30/2013 Samuel Koppes 418278004US 7664
143198 7590 01/31/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MS)
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
YU, XIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL KOPPES, NEAL MYERSON, SRIKRISHNA GALI,
PAUL LO, and JOSEPH MASTERSON
Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564
Technology Center 2400

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–8, 12–15, and 21–26. Non-Final
Act. 2. Claim 4, 9–11, and 16–20 have been cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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 Microsoft
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a “relationship view system [that]
generates a relationship view of information for a relationship between a
user and another person for display to the user.” Abstract.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-readable storage medium storing
computer-executable instructions for controlling a computing
device to generate a relationship view of information for a user,
the computer-executable instructions comprising instructions
that:
receive from the user an indication of a focus for the
relationship view, the focus being an entity such that the
relationship view provides information that identifies
items of information types that relate both to the user and
to the entity; and
in response to receiving the indication of the focus:
display information relating to the entity; and
for each of a plurality of information types:
identify items of that information type that are
related to both the user and the focus, such
that only items that relate to both the user
and the focus are identified; and
display information that identifies that information
type and that uniquely identifies each of the
identified items of that information type;
wherein information for multiple information types is provided
for simultaneous display and wherein the displayed
information provides the user with a relationship view of
items that relate to both the user and the focus.
Supplemental Appeal Br. 2 filed on January 4, 2018 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 12–15, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Li (US 2011/0078188 A1, published March
31, 2011) in view of Robinson (US 2006/0173957 A1, published August 3,
2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response,
supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by
Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Non-Final Action from which this appeal is taken (see Non-
Final Act. 3–27) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3–
13). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
it is not logically possible for Li to describe the remaining portion of
Claim 1 because the remaining portion of Claim 1 recites ‘in response
to receiving the indication of the focus,’ which is conditioned on the
portion of Claim 1 that Li does not disclose according to the
Examiner. Hence, any and all arguments that the Examiner provides
using Li is improper.
Appeal Br. 7.
As to Appellant’s above contention, we disagree for the reasons set
forth by the Examiner at pages 16–19 of the Answer. The Examiner finds
Robinson explicitly discloses the disputed features:
Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564

4
Robinson was introduced and relied upon, as Robinson's system
more expressly displayed the relationship or connection
between a requesting user and the queried person or document.
The appellant did not expressly argue Robinson's teachings and
citations here, but the examiner would like to clarify that
Robinson provided multiple graphical views on how to the
relationship between two entities can be displayed. Robinson
for example discloses early on about sematic network analysis
of documents as well as event analysis (i.e., how or when they
occur in time) (e.g., Robinson: ¶ [0021]). Robinson further
discloses that an analysis mechanism allows a user to model,
access, analyze, visualize, and report on the various relations
that exist between the messages, such as analyzing and
extracting information from the messages to determine the
sender and receiver of each message (e.g., ¶¶ [0042-43]).
Robinson provided many different exemplary graphical
representations, as depicted in Figures 4-9 and the most
relevant graphs that we will be focusing on are Figures 5, 7, and
8 as they most closely depict information related to the claimed
language, such as the relationship between two entities.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s arguments are misdirected and are not persuasive.
Appellant is attacking the Li reference, when the Examiner relies upon the
Robinson for teaching the claimed “in response to receiving the indication of
the focus” feature. See Ans. 4–6. Thus, Appellant is challenging the wrong
reference and not responding to the Examiner’s specific findings.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “there is nothing in Figure 8 or any other
portion of Robinson that describes, for each of a plurality of information
types (e.g., emails and calendar events), displaying information that
identifies that information type as recited by applicant’s claims.” Appeal Br.
8.
Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564

5
The Examiner finds, and we agree that Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate in scope with the claim language because:
the claim language does not explicitly limit it down to e-
mails. Also, once again, as the appellant summarized in the
beginning that "both [references were] directed to identifying a
social network based on analyzing for example emails and
instant messages" which meant that e-mails and instant
messages are already being considered by the applied teachings
from Li in view of Robinson. Furthermore, with the system
receiving from the inquiring user "an indication of a focus," that
phrase is being interpreted to be very straightforward, as the
system is getting the user's entered search term(s) or query,
which is simply an "entity." Independent claim 1 does not limit
down what an "entity" may be and not until dependent claim 3,
where it is further limited to a document.
Ans. 10. (emphasis added, alteration in original).
We also note that Appellant’s challenge to the references individually
is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.).” Thus, the Examiner, giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, has
properly found that Li and Robinson teach the disputed limitations, as
explained above.
Therefore, based on this record, we are not persuaded of error
regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness for independent claim 1, and independent claims
12 and 21, argued together with claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued
for the dependent claims.
Appeal 2018-007749
Application 14/042,564

6
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–8, 12–15, and 21–26.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–8, 12–15,
and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8,
12–15, 21–
26
103(a) Li, Robinson 1–3, 5–8,
12–15, 21–
26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2017).
AFFIRMED