Shazaan Bahrainwala et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 201912966597 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019) 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. 12/966,597 12/13/2010 Shazaan Bahrainwala 330634.01 9065 69316 7590 11/29/2019 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2019 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): chriochs@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHAZAAN BAHRAINWALA, WISSAM KAZAN, AMANDA FONT, MONA AKMAL, FRANCISLAV P. PENOV, PATRICK JAKUBOWSKI, BENJAMIN NICHOLAS TRUELOVE, and VASUDHA CHANDRASEKARAN Appeal 2018–006998 Application 12/966,597 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24 and 29–47. Claims 1–23 and 25–28 are cancelled. 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. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to presenting notifications of content items shared by social network contacts. Claim 24, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 24. A method of presenting, on a client device having a processor operated by a user of a social network, content items hosted by a content source external to the social network, the method comprising: receiving from the user, at the client device, a request for a presentation of the content source that is external to the social network; in response to the received request from the user, searching, at the client device, a content item data set for a content item that is shared with the user in the social network and is hosted by the content source, the content item data set containing data representing multiple content items previously shared with the user in the social network and content sources hosting the shared content items; for the content item found during the search of the content item data set, identifying, at the client device, a comment that is associated with the content item, the comment being provided by a contact of the user in the social network when the contact shares the content item with the user in the social network; generating a presentation of the content source by retrieving, at the client device, a webpage from the content source and integrating into the retrieved webpage a notification of the content item that is found during the search of the content item data set along with the comment that is provided by the contact of the user in the social network; and presenting, at the client device, the generated presentation of the content source to the user. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Mao Black Tarara Taylor US 2006/0294192 A1 US 2009/0157312 A1 US 2010/0241968 A1 US 2011/0265011 A1 Dec. 28, 2006 June 18, 2009 Sep. 23, 2010 Oct. 27, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 24, 29–31, 33–39, and 41–46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taylor, Mao, and Tarara. Final Act. 2– 18. Claims 32, 40, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taylor, Mao, Tarara, and Black. Final Act. 18–22. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Mao teaches or suggests “searching, at the client device, a content item data set for a content item that is shared with the user in the social network and is hosted by the content source, the content item data set containing data representing multiple content items previously shared with the user in the social network and content sources hosting the shared content items,” as recited in claim 24? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Mao teaches or suggests “for the content item found during the search of the content item data set, identifying, at the client device, a comment that is associated with the content item [and] provided by a contact of the user in the social network when the contact shares the content item with the user in the social network,” as recited in claim 24? Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 4 Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Taylor, Mao, and Tarara teach or suggest “retrieving, at the client device, a webpage from the content source and integrating into the retrieved webpage a notification of the content item that is found during the search of the content item data set along with the comment that is provided by the contact of the user in the social network,” as recited in claim 24? Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Tarara teaches or suggests “sorting the first and second comments . . . according to the first and second contacts providing the first and second comments within the social network,” as recited in claim 31? Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Tarara teaches or suggests “wherein generating the presentation includes exclusing comments by the user within the social network regarding the content items that is found during the search of the social network and is hosted by the content source,” as recited in claim 35? ANALYSIS First Issue The Examiner rejects claims 24 as obvious over Taylor, Mao, and Tarara. Relevant here, the Examiner finds that Mao teaches the recitation of “searching, at the client device, a content item data set for a content item that is shared with the user in the social network and is hosted by the content source.” Final Act. 4 (citing Mao ¶¶ 48–51, 67–85, 121–23, Figs. 2, 3, 8); Ans. 3–4. Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because Mao’s search is performed on a server, and the claim requires that the search be executed on the client device. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant asserts that the only Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 5 operation performed by the client device in Mao is transmitting a search request to a search server. Reply Br. 2. The location of the requested items, however, is performed at the server. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation of “at the client device” is unreasonably broad because “[if] the Examiner’s interpretation were correct, any operations related to the searching, such as sharing search results, may also be read as searching a dataset, which cannot be true.” Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellant. Mao teaches that the user initiates the search at the client device. We agree with the Examiner that this teaching is sufficient to render obvious the argued limitation. The initiation of the search is part of a larger searching operation. We do not view the Examiner’s interpretation as being unreasonable on this point given the language chosen by Appellant. As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant’s Specification describes an embodiment in which the content item data set is stored on a server and the search of the server is initiated by the client device. See Spec. ¶ 28 (“[A] content item server 62 may be configured to monitor the social network 12 and to record the sharing of content items 26 (e.g., by generating the content item data set 44 and the comment data set 46).”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Mao teaches the argued limitation.2 Second Issue Appellant also argues that Mao does not teach “for the content item found during the search of the content item data set, identifying, at the client device, a comment that is associated with the content item,” as recited in 2 Appellant relies on a similar argument for independent claim 36, which recites a similar limitation. App. Br. 19–20. We are not persuaded of error with respect to claim 36 for the same reasons. Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 6 claim 24. Appellant’s argument is substantially the same as with the first issue—that the Examiner has interpreted “at the client device” unreasonably. For the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Third Issue Claim 24 recites “retrieving, at the client device, a webpage from the content source and integrating into the retrieved webpage a notification of the content item that is found during the search of the content item data set along with the comment that is provided by the contact of the user in the social network.” The Examiner finds this limitation obvious over combined teachings of Taylor, Mao, and Tarara. Final Act. 3 (citing Taylor ¶¶ 63–65, 71, Figs. 3–5), 5–6 (citing Tarara ¶ 100, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 5–6 (citing Taylor ¶¶ 55–57; and Mao ¶¶ 48–52, 67–70, Figs. 2, 3). Appellant argues Taylor does not teach “integrating into the retrieved webpage a notification of the content item,” as recited by the claim. Appeal Br. 17. We disagree. Taylor shows that the browser retrieves a web page from an external website that includes content shared on a social network with notifications. For example, in Figure 3, the frame 320 includes items shared along with their corresponding “likes.” The corresponding “likes” are encompassed by the “notification of the content item” in Appellant’s claim. Appellant also argues Taylor and Mao fail to teach any notification integrated into the retrieved webpage “along with the comment that is provided by the contact of the user in the social network.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner relies on Tarara, and not on Taylor and May for the recited “along with the comment.” See Final Act. 5 Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 7 (“Tarara discloses incorporating social network comments into a web page [Fig. 7, para. 100].”) As such, Appellant’s argument does not address the finding made by the Examiner, and it is not persuasive of error. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 24. Fourth Issue Claim 31, which depends from claim 24, recites the limitation “sorting the first and second comments . . . according to the first and second contacts providing the first and second comments within the social network.” App. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds this limitation taught by Tarara’s sorting of comments according to how recent the comment was posted on the social network. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Tarara ¶¶ 100–101, Fig. 7); Ans. 6–7 (citing Tarara ¶ 102). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “as the Examiner has recognized that ‘Tarara further discloses ordering the comments according to how recent is the comment being posted,’ which is not ‘according to the first and second contacts providing the first and second comments.’” App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Tarara teaches that micro-comments “may be displayed in an order indicating a more recently entered micro-comment higher in a displayed ordering that other micro- comments.” Tarara ¶ 102. Tarara further teaches “other arrangements are possible” including displaying comments of “particular users.” Id. Thus, Tarara teaches that comments may be sorted, and that the sorting may be based on which users entered the “first and second comments.” Although Appellant asserts that these teachings differ from the claim, Appellant Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 8 provides no explanation for how this is so. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31, and we sustain its rejection. Fifth Issue Depending from claim 24, Appellant’s claim 35 recites “excluding comments by the user” when generating the presentation for display. App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner concludes claim 35 is obvious because Tarara teaches excluding certain comments, such as for example, those comments not submitted in the prior two hours. Final Act. 8 (citing Tarara ¶ 102). The Examiner further finds that Tarara teaches filtering of comments based on user identification. Ans. 7 (“[T]he filtering includes filtering by user ID.”). The Examiner explains that “when Tarara’s filter is set to display only the comments by specific users other than the user requesting the page,” it teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 35. Id. Appellant argues the Tarara is deficient because it merely teaches excluding comments based on when they are submitted. App. Br. 19. However, Appellant does not address the additional explanation provided by the Examiner regarding excluding comments based on the user identification. We agree with the Examiner that Tarara’s disclosure of user- specific filtering is sufficient to render obvious claim 35. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 35. Remaining Claims Appellant does not argue any of the remaining claims with particularity. As such, the remaining claims fall along with their respective independent claims. Appeal 2018-006998 Application 12/966,597 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 24, 29–31, 33–39, 41–46 103(a) Taylor, Mao, Tarara 24, 29–31, 33–39, 41–46 32, 40, 47 103(a) Taylor, Mao, Tarara, Black 32, 40, 47 Overall Outcome 24, 29–47 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation