AOL Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020001847 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
14/562,941 12/08/2014 Jeffrey Todd WILSON 00008-0099-00000 2971
114629 7590 09/02/2021
Bookoff McAndrews
2020 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
DYER, ANDREW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
Kross@bomcip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptomail@bomcip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY TODD WILSON
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941
Technology Center 2100

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, 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, 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14–16, and 18. See
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oath Inc.,
whose assignment is recorded in the USPTO. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to evaluating user input relating to electronic
published content. Spec. 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for evaluating user input
relating to electronic published content, the method comprising:
receiving, over an electronic network, a single piece of
authored electronic publishing content for display online;
displaying the received single piece of authored
electronic publishing content on a web page along with one or
more user feedback elements;
dividing the single piece of authored electronic
publishing content into a plurality of subportions, each of the
plurality of subportions corresponding to a paragraph of the
single piece of authored electronic publishing content;
receiving, from at least one of a plurality of users, a first
user input related to the displayed single piece of authored
electronic publishing content displayed on the web page,
wherein the first user input comprises an identification of a
subportion of the plurality of subportions of the displayed
single piece of authored electronic publishing content and a first
user input type regarding the identified subportion, wherein the
first user input type is a sentiment input regarding the identified
subportion;
receiving, from at least one of a plurality of users, a
second user input related to the displayed single piece of
authored electronic publishing content displayed on the web
page, wherein the second user input comprises an identification
of one or more words of the subportion of the plurality of
subportions of the displayed single piece of authored electronic
publishing content and the first user input type regarding the
identified one or more words of the subportion;
analyzing, for each subportion of the displayed single
piece of authored electronic publishing content, the first user
input and the second user input received from each of one or
more of the plurality of users in relation to the subportion,
wherein analyzing the first user input and the second user input
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

3
includes analyzing the action history of at least one of the first
user and the second user;
computing, for each subportion of the displayed single
piece of authored electronic publishing content, a sentiment
score based on analysis of the analyzed first user input and the
second user input received from each of one or more of the
plurality of users in relation to the subportion;
displaying, for each subportion of the displayed single
piece of authored electronic publishing content, an indicator
representing the sentiment score computed for the subportion of
the displayed single piece of authored electronic publishing
content, wherein the indicator is displayed along with at least
one user element by which one or more further users are
enabled to provide a third user input to further modify the
computed and indicated sentiment score, and wherein the at
least one user element includes at least one of a thumbs up and
a thumbs down icon; and
wherein the first user input, the second user input, and
the third user input further comprise one or more tags received
from the one or more plurality of users in relation to one or
more subportions of the single piece of authored electronic
publishing content, and wherein filter rules may be
automatically created based on the one or more tags received
from the one or more plurality of users.

Claim 1 (emphases added).

Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jenkins US 9,569,549 B1 Feb. 14, 2017
Delpha US 2012/0030553 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Tang US 2013/0054636 A1 Feb. 28, 2013
REJECTION
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14–16,
18
103 Tang, Jenkins, Delpha
OPINION
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tang, Jenkins, and Delpha.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s analysis of a “user’s previously
measured reading ability” as reading on “analyzing the action history of at
least one of the first user and the second user,” as recited in claim 1, is
improper because it is not consistent with the Specification. Appeal Br. 13
(citing Final Act. 4 and Tang para. 65). Appellant argues that Tang teaches
that an annotated resulting document may be considered a social map that
composites information from a plurality of students and the annotations may
be subject to further break down based on, e.g., “sex of the student,
previously measured reading ability of the student.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing
Tang para. 65).
By contrast, according to Appellant, the originally-filed Specification
discloses that analyzing a user’s input may include an analysis of the user’s
“action history,” “[f]or example, if the user identifies as a liberal in his/her
profile, textual input related to a subportion praising conservatives may, by
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

5
default, be analyzed as being a negative sentiment” or “if a user’s history
shows repeated negative textual input when an article, comment, and/or
subportion praise[s] liberals, all comments on subportions praising liberals
may, by default be analyzed as containing a negative sentiment.” Appeal Br.
13–14. Thus, according to Appellant, in light of the Specification, a “user’s
previously measured reading ability” cannot reasonably read on “analyzing
the action history of at least one of the first user and the second user,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant further argues against the Examiner’s alternate
interpretation, finding that Tang reads on “analyzing the action history of at
least one of the first user and the second user” because a “series of
annotations entered by the users” is a “form of action history.” Appeal Br.
14. Appellant argues that a “series of annotations entered by the users,” as
taught by Tang, is not consistent with the “action history” as disclosed in the
originally-filed Specification as discussed supra. Id.
We agree with Appellant’s argument.
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s own quotation indicates that this
provided interpretation is optional (i.e., “[f]or example”), and thus non-
limiting. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “action history” is a collection of previous (i.e.,
historical) things or processes performed by the user. Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds that Tang teaches that its system “perform[s] a semantic analysis” of
the annotations provided by the exemplary “20 students” (i.e., “at least one
of the first and second user”). Ans. 5 (citing Tang para. 65). The Examiner
finds that as a result, Tang is unquestionably disclosing the act of analyzing
the annotations of at least one of the first and the second user. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

6
According to the Examiner, Tang teaches processing the annotations
of all the students and creates a “social map” where the annotations are
broken down by “previously measured reading ability” of those students.
Ans. 5 (citing para. 65). According to the Examiner, a user’s reading ability
is an action because reading is a process performed by the user and
“previously measured” indicates that the measurement took place based on
previous data, and is thus, historical. Ans. 5. Further, this use case also
indicates that the semantic analysis may be performed using data collected in
“previous years.” Id.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. “During examination,
‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). Appellant’s Specification discloses:
In some embodiments, the user’s action history and/or
user’s profile may, additionally or alternatively, be analyzed in
step 214. The sentiment of a user’s textual input and/or
appropriate tags for said input may be based on a user's profile
or history by default. For example, if the user identifies as a
liberal in his/her profile, textual input related to a subportion
praising conservatives may, by default, be analyzed as being a
negative sentiment. Similarly, if a user’s history shows
repeated negative textual input when an article, comment,
and/or subportion praise liberals, all comments on subportions
praising liberals may, by default be analyzed as containing a
negative sentiment. In some embodiments, a user may wish to
hide words like “liberal” and “conservative” from being pulled
from their profiles to analyze comments.
Spec. para. 43 (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

7
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification analyzing the “action history” is defined as “[t]he sentiment of
a user’s textual input . . . may be based on a user’s . . . history by default.”
See Spec. para. 43. Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
finding that a user’s reading ability is an action because reading is a process
performed by the user and “previously measured” indicates that the
measurement took place based on previous data, and is thus, historical. See
Ans. 5. This is because the “user’s reading ability” according to Tang is
used to further break down the annotations made by the students and it does
not relate to the semantic analysis of the annotations. In particular, Tang
teaches that “[a]t a desired time, the teacher triggers retrieval and
aggregation of annotations from all students. The devices, the tabletop
device or combination thereof perform a semantic analysis of the
annotations made by the students.” Tang para. 65 (emphasis added). Tang
further teaches that “the annotations may be broken down by sex of the
student, previously measured reading ability of the student, etc.” Id. In
other words, inconsistent with Appellant’s own Specification, Tang’s sorting
of the annotations based on “previously measured reading ability,” has
nothing to do with sentiment analysis based on the user’s history by default
as required by Appellant’s own Specification, because the sentiment analysis
in Tang was already performed upon the teacher’s triggering the semantic
analysis of the annotations. See Tang para. 65 and Spec. para. 43.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
semantic analysis may be performed using data collected in “previous years”
(Ans. 5) because Tang teaches that “the annotations from the 20 students
may be combined with annotations made by other classes at the same school
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

8
(but perhaps in previous years) or may be combined with annotations made
by other classes across the country.” Tang para. 65. Thus, the “previous
years” analysis are annotations made by “other classes” and thus, not the
same 20 students or users as required by claim 1. See claim 1 and Tang
para. 65.
The Examiner further finds that, Tang also teaches that the “semantic
analysis uses the content (and content of the annotations) of the V2-0
document to access other historical and available information derived from
other documents and other sources such as the historical document 210.”
Ans. 5 (citing Tang para. 37). According to the Examiner, Tang teaches that
“annotations from annotator R . . . were found, through semantic analysis, to
be relevant to the content of the V2-0 document.” Ans. 5–6 (citing para. 40).
The Examiner finds in other words, that Tang teaches historical documents,
which are created by users (i.e., performed actions on), are analyzed for the
content within them. Ans. 6. Figure 2 of Tang relied upon by the Examiner
is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

9

Figure 2 reproduced above shows a document owner 220 and annotator 224
with respective annotations 202 and 206, as well as a historical document
210 owned by different document owner 226. We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings because claim 1 requires that “analyzing, for each
subportion of the displayed single piece of authored electronic publishing
content. . . wherein analyzing the first user input and the second user input
includes analyzing the action history of at least one of the first user and the
second user.” See claim 1 (emphases added). Thus, the single piece of
document having paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in annotated documents 202 and
206 has associated respective users 220 and 224 and the historical document
210 does not constitute the action history of users 220 and 224 but rather of
user 226. Accordingly, Tang does not teach or suggest “analyzing, for each
Appeal 2020-001847
Application 14/562,941

10
subportion of the displayed single piece of authored electronic publishing
content. . . wherein analyzing the first user input and the second user input
includes analyzing the action history of at least one of the first user and the
second user” as required by claim 1 (emphases added).
The additional references of Jenkins and Delpha do not cure the above
cited deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14–16, and 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Jenkins, and Delpha.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14–
16, and 18 for the same reasons as articulated supra.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14–16, and 18
under § 103 is REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 7–9,
11, 14–16,
18
103 Tang, Jenkins,
Delpha
1, 2, 4, 7–9,
11, 14–16,
18

REVERSED