Stephen FARRELL et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2021

2021000268 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
12/342,409 12/23/2008 Stephen Paul FARRELL IL920080145US1/0920.0201C 2622
46157 7590 07/02/2021
EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
OFORI-AWUAH, MAAME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2021 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN PAUL FARRELL, IDO GUY, NOGA MESHULAM,
INBAL RONEN, ELAD SHAHAR, SIGALIT UR, and ERIC WILCOX
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, 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 1–5, 7–11, 13–24, 26, and 27. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims, according to Appellant, are directed to application of
relationship weights to social network connections. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for relationship weighting in social networks,
comprising:
identifying, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, a plurality of different sources of relationship data,
wherein each of the different sources defines and assigns a
strength of relationship value for each of a set of connected
contacts within that source, and wherein at least two of the
different sources determine the strength of relationship value for
connected contacts in a different manner according to their
different semantics;
receiving, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, from each of the different sources a list of connected
contacts with a relationship strength value assigned by the
different source for each connected contact, wherein each of the
connected contacts represents entities linked by a relationship
established within the different source, wherein the list of
connected contacts from a corresponding one of the different
sources includes a selected contact and a plurality of other
contacts of the corresponding different source connected to the
selected contact, and wherein the list of connected contacts from
the corresponding different source further includes a connected
contact having the selected contact and one of the other contacts
without a relationship strength value determined by the
corresponding different source, and the receiving further
includes:
determining an average of relationship strength values
from relationship strength values of each of the other contacts of
the corresponding different source having a relationship strength
value with the selected contact; and
using the average relationship strength value as the
relationship strength value for the connected contact of the
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
3
corresponding different source without a relationship strength
value;
associating, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, a source weighting with each of the different sources;
computing, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, an aggregate relationship strength value for each of the
connected contacts by applying the source weightings of each of
the different sources to the corresponding relationship strength
value assigned to each of the connected contacts by the different
sources;
aggregating, via at least one computer executing
computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory
storage medium, the connected contacts from the different
sources into an aggregated list, wherein the aggregated list
includes the associated aggregate relationship strength value for
each of the connected contacts;
applying, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, the aggregated list to a social network with a plurality
of connected contacts each lacking a relationship strength value
between those contacts, wherein the applying includes assigning
the aggregate relationship strength value of connected contacts
of the aggregated list to corresponding connected contacts within
the social network to provide a relationship strength value for the
connected contacts; and
extending, via at least one computer executing computer-
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage
medium, operations performed within the social network to
account for relationship strength between contacts indicated by
the assigned relationship strength values.
Appeal Br. 33–35 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bates US 6,247,043 B1 June 12, 2001
Ben-Yoseph US 7,613,776 B1 Nov. 3, 2009
Brezin US 2002/0178161 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
Dom US 2004/0122803 A1 June 24, 2004
Dhillion US 2006/0085373 A1 Apr. 20, 2006
Cadiz US 2006/0195472 A1 Aug. 31, 2006
Marlow US 2009/0177744 A1 July 9, 2009
Tsaparas US 2009/0306996 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Hardt US 2010/0082695 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18–22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, and
Marlow. Final Act. 2.
Claims 9, 10, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and Ben-
Yoseph. Final Act. 13.
Claims 11 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and
Dhillion. Final Act. 14.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and Hardt. Final Act. 16.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and Bates. Final Act. 16.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and Dom. Final Act. 17.
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
5
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, Marlow, and Cadiz. Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18–22
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18–22 for
obviousness over Brezin, Tsaparas, and Marlow. Final Act. 2–8. We have
reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in the Final Rejection and Answer. See Final Act. 2–13;
Ans. 19–23.
Appellant argues claims 1–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18–22 as a group.
Appeal Br. 19, 23. Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv),
we decide the obviousness rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18–22
based on representative claim 1.
Appellant argues Tsaparas fails to teach or suggest the limitations:
determining an average of relationship strength values
from relationship strength values of each of the other contacts
of the corresponding different source having a relationship
strength value with the selected contact; and
using the average relationship strength value as the
relationship strength value for the connected contact of the
corresponding different source without a relationship strength
value,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19–23. Appellant argues that “the
basis for the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is that these claim
elements are allegedly disclosed by” Tsaparas, and “if [Tsaparas]
does not disclose the corresponding claim element as stated by the
Examiner, the proposed combination of references fails to attain the
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
6
claimed invention, and that rejection must be reversed.” Appeal Br.
20 (citing M.P.E.P. § 706.020).
In rejecting claim 1, however, the Examiner relies on a combination
of the teachings of three prior art references. With regard to the disputed
limitations, the Examiner finds:
Brezin discloses determining relationship strength values of
connected contacts of the corresponding source having a
corresponding relationship strength value and using the
computed relationship values to populate an empty relationship
arc (see P[0048]). However, Brezin does not explicitly disclose
determining an average of relationship strength values from
relationship strength values of each of the other contacts of the
corresponding different source having a relationship strength
value with the selected contact; and using the average
relationship strength value as the relationship strength value for
the connected contact of the corresponding different source
without a relationship strength value.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Tsaparas, in view of Brezin, teaches
“determining an average of relationship strength values from relationship
strength values of each of the other contacts of the corresponding different
source having a relationship strength value with the selected contact; and
using the average relationship strength value as the relationship strength
value for the connected contact of the corresponding different source
without a relationship strength value.” Id. (citing Tsaparas ¶ 29). Thus, the
Examiner at least relies on the combined teachings of Brezin paragraph 48
and Tsaparas paragraph 29 as teaching the disputed limitations. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 20–21.
Appellant attacks Tsaparas individually, even though the Examiner
relied on the combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, and Marlow in rejecting
claim 1. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
7
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those
having ordinary skill in the art.”).
Because Appellant did not address what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Brezin,
Tsaparas, and Marlow teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18–22, argued as a group with
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19, 23; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 26
Appellant argues claim 26 separately. See Appeal Br. 24. Claim 26
depends from claim 1 and further recites the limitation:
interfacing a corresponding source, via the at least one
computer for receiving, by utilizing an application programming
interface for social networks including a relations component, a
strength component, an evidence component, and a topic
component, to produce relationship data from the corresponding
source in the form of the list of connected contacts with
relationship strength values, wherein the application
programming interface provides a protocol for social networks
between each of the different sources and the at least one
computer for the receiving, the relations component receiving
parameters including one or more contacts and directing
operations of the corresponding source to analyze the
relationship data of the corresponding source and produce for
each contact a set of connected contacts, the strength component
receiving parameters including a pair of contacts and directing
operations of the corresponding source to analyze the
relationship data of the corresponding source and determine for
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
8
the pair of contacts the relationship strength value within a
specified numeric range, the evidence component receiving
parameters including at least one contact and directing operations
of the corresponding source to provide evidence for connections
of the at least one contact, and the topic component receiving
parameters including a topic and directing operations of the
corresponding source to analyze evidence of connections
between contacts and determine connected contacts associated
with the topic.
Appeal Br. 45–46 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues the Examiner has not sufficiently explained where
Brezin and Marlow teach or suggest:
an application programing interface to produce relationship data
from the corresponding source in the form of the list of connected
contacts with relationship strength values including a relations
component (to produce for each contact a set of connected
contacts), a strength component (to determine for a pair of
contacts the relationship strength value within a specified
numeric range), an evidence component (to provide evidence for
connections of at least one contact), and a topic component (to
analyze evidence of connections between contacts and determine
connected contacts associated with the topic),
as recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 11; Ans. 23–24.
The Examiner finds Marlow teaches an application interface
used to access information from other networks. Ans. 22 (citing
Marlow ¶ 23). The Examiner relies on paragraphs 35 and 36 of
Marlow as teaching an application program interface that includes a
relations component (to produce for each contact a set of connected
contacts) and a strength component (to determine for a pair of
contacts the relationship strength value within a specified numeric
range). Ans. 23 (citing Marlow ¶¶ 35–36). The Examiner relies on
paragraphs 64 and 69 of Marlow as teaching an evidence component
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
9
(to provide evidence for connections of at least one contact), and a
topic component (to analyze evidence of connections between
contacts and determine connected contacts associated with the topic).
Id. at 24 (citing Marlow ¶¶ 64 and 69).
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Rather, Appellant contends “there is no disclosure of specific
components of the API and corresponding parameters” in Marlow.
Reply Br. 12. The test for obviousness, however, is not whether the
claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Brezin, Tsaparas, and Marlow teaches or suggests the
limitations recited in claim 26, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 26.
Claims 9–11, 15–17, 23, 24, and 27
Claims 9–11, 15–17, 23, 24, and 27 depend, either directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 1 or 21. Appellant argues
claims 9–11, 15–17, 23, 24, and 27 are patentable for the same
reasons as claims 1 and 21. Appeal Br. 27–32.
Because Appellant does not argue claims 9–11, 15–17, 23, 24,
and 27 separately with particularity, for the reasons set forth above in
the context of representative claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 9–11, 15–17, 23, 24, and 27.
Appeal 2021-000268
Application 12/342,409
10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–24, 26,
and 27 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8,
13, 14, 18–
22, 26
103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow
1–5, 7, 8,
13, 14, 18–
22, 26

9, 10, 23 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Ben,
Yoseph
9, 10, 23
11, 24 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Dhillion,
11, 24
15 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Hardt
15
16 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Bates,
16
17 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Dom,
17
27 103(a) Brezin, Tsaparas,
Marlow, Cadiz
27
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–11,
13–24, 26,
27

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