Ex Parte Brooks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13855572 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

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.
13/855,572 04/02/2013 David A. Brooks RSW920120172US1 8026
75949 7590
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
DAYE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
patents @ fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. BROOKS, MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, ETHAN L.
PERRY, THOMAS SCHAECK, and MICHAEL C. WANDERSKI
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
STEVE M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 10-15, 20-23, and 26—35, which are all of the
pending claims. Claims 1—9, 16—19, 24, and 25 were previously canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to “calculating
a list of activity events for a user’s activity stream based on weights assigned
to implicit actions and explicit actions” and “prioritizing the list of activity
events in the user’s activity stream based on the weights.” Spec. 13.
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 10 is exemplary:
10. A system for calculating lists of events in activity
streams, comprising:
a user device comprising a user interface allowing a user
to access multiple social network services and multiple product
websites; and
a social network server in communication with said user
device to capture a user’s interactions of multiple resources
from said multiple social network services and said multiple
product websites, wherein the system follows a resource for the
user based on the system identifying an implicit action by the
user.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruflher et al. (US 2012/0191776 Al, published July 26, 2012), and Xie
(US 2014/0019457, published Jan. 16, 2014).
2. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruflher, Xie, and Hosken (US 6,438,579 Bl, issued Aug. 20, 2002).
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruflher, Xie, Hosken, and Panyam et al. (US 2012/0110080, published
May 3, 2012).
2
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
4. Claims 13—15, 20—23, 26, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Panyam, Xie, Hosken, and Griffin (US
2014/0025734, published Jan. 23, 2014).
5. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruffner, Xie, and Spivack (US 2009/0106307 Al, published Apr. 23,
2009).
6. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruffner, Xie, and Occhino et al. (US 2011/0004692 Al, published
Jan. 6, 2011).
7. Claims 29 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruffner, Xie, Hosken, Panyam and Spivack.
8. Claims 30, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruffner, Xie, Hosken, Panyam, and Griffin.
9. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Panyan, Xie, Hosken, Griffin, and Spivack.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that:
1. The combination of Ruffner and Xie teaches or suggests a system that
“follows a resource for the user based on the system identifying an implicit
action by the user.” Claim 10 (emphasis added).
2. The combination of Panyam, Xie, Hosken, and Griffin teaches or
suggests calculating “a list of activity events for a user’s activity stream
based on weights assigned to implicit actions and explicit actions.” Claims
13 and 21 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ruffner
1. Ruffner discloses a system for recommending to a user a particular
context of potential interest, based on detecting an interaction by the user
with some item of web content. 112. Social network services recommend
to users individual items of web content (e.g., news stories) based on explicit
or implicit expression of interest by the users. 113. For example, the social
network user may explicitly indicate that she is interested in certain topics
by checking a box corresponding with topics of interest or the social
network service may recommend content based on some implicit expression
of interest such as detected content items that a particular user is accessing.
Id. In such implicit case, the social network service includes a content
server module that operates in conjunction with a web document processing
module and a content personalization module to present a user with context
recommendations, based on the detection of an interaction with a web
document. 124.
Xie
2. Xie discloses a system for indexing, ranking, and analyzing web
activity. 118. Web activity includes implicit human actions derived by
monitoring the update of web content over time and any internet or mobile
activities and actions by human or applications. Id. For example, a user can
follow a concept in which the user can review the timely flow of content
related to the concept, all metadata related therewith, and all relevant web
activity related thereto. 122. The web activity is indexed to the concept
4
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
such that each concept can monitor activity levels, sentiment, trends, web
participants and related data sources. Id. Web activity and web events can
be intelligently bundled, taking into account historical and other recent web
activity, and can be correlated, to create an intelligent and proprietary web
activity stream which results in recommendations around people and
content, suggestions around new related concepts, discovery, and
predictions. 147. For example, based on implied interest in a user’s
account such as a Facebook account, a recommendation is made for the user
to follow a particular Ticker. | 59. Tickers are “equivalent to labels or
programmatic hashtags,” and reflect concepts. 195.
Hosken
3. Hosken discloses a system for determining and providing content
recommendations, wherein explicit profiling data provided by the user and
implicitly derived from referral system processes are processed and stored.
Col. 4,11. 46-49. User navigation of presented recommendations and user
actions in reviewing and considering media content items are utilized in the
refinement of profile data. Col. 5,11. 42-46. In particular, implicit user
behaviors are analyzed to identify media content attributes and media
content item interests implicitly expressed by the user through browsing
activities. Col. 11,11. 13—15. Implicit information gathered from user
actions is processed and stored as an addition and refinement of the profile
data previously stored. Col. 5,11. 59-62. Recommendations are determined
based on Favorite media content items identified by the user, employing the
content database and the user profiles tables. Col. 8,11. 38-43.
5
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 10
Although Appellants concede Ruffner discloses following items for a
user, Appellants contend “Ruffner only discusses following items for a user
in response to exp licit user action.” App. Br. 11. Thus, Appellants contend
that Ruffner “does not teach or suggest ‘wherein the system follows a
resource for a user based on the system identifying an implicit action by the
user’ [as recited in claim 10].” Id. at 11—12. Similarly, although Appellants
concede “Xie may suggest that a user follow a concept,” Appellants contend
that Xie “only actually follows the concept when explicitly instructed to do
so.” Id. at 12. That is, “Xie, like Ruffner, only follows something when
explicitly instructed to do so by the user.” Id.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 10 would have been obvious
over the teachings and suggestions of Ruffner and Xie.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although Appellants contend that both Xie and Ruffner only follow a
resource “when explicitly instructed to do so by the user” (App. Br. 12),
claim 10 merely requires that the system follow a resource for the user
“based on the system identifying an implicit action by the user.” Claim 10.
6
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
Here, the claim does not preclude following when “explicitly” instructed to
do so as long as the following is also based on the system identifying an
“implicit” action by the user. That is, claim 10 does not preclude the system
identifying an implicit action by the user and then recommending the user to
explicitly instruct the following of the resource.
Here, as Appellants concede, Ruffher discloses following items for a
user. App. Br. 11. Further, the Examiner’s finds, and we agree, “Ruffner
clearly discusses the use of implicit actions by the user [for] determining and
recommending content of interest to the user.” Ans. 17;FF1. In particular,
Ruffher discloses social network services which recommend to users
individual items of web content (e.g., news stories) based on explicit or
implicit expression of interest by the users. FF 1. Thus, Ruffher teaches and
suggests following items for a user based on the user’s implicit actions. Id.
Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claims, we find that
Ruffher teaches and suggests a system that “follows a resource for the user
based on the system identifying an implicit action by the user.” Claim 10.
Furthermore, according to the examiner, “Xie was incorporated in
order to more specifically teach that the claimed ‘system follow[ing] a
resource based on an implicit action.” Ans. 17. That is, Xie discloses that
based on implied interest in a user’s account, a recommendation is made for
the user to follow a particular resource. Id.; FF 2. Thus, we find no error
with the Examiner’s reliance on Xie in combination with Ruffher for
teaching and suggesting a system that “follows a resource for the user based
on the system identifying an implicit action by the user” as recited in claim
10. Ans. 17.
7
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10 over Ruffher in combination with Xie.
Claim 11
As for claim 11 depending from claim 10, although Appellants
concede “Hosken . . . discusses the use and storage of profiling data that
includes both implicit and explicit items,” Appellants contend “Hosken does
not teach or suggest that the profiling data is stored ‘as implicit actions and
explicit actions’as required.” App. Br. 14. According to Appellants,
“[njothing teaches or suggests that implicit and explicit profiling data is
treated differently or can be categorized by the system as implicit vs.
explicit.” Id.
However, as the Examiner points out, “the features upon which
applicant relies (i.e., categorized) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).”
Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner that claim 11 merely requires storing
the user’s interactions “as implicit actions and as explicit actions” in
memory. Claim 11. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (App. Br.
14), the claim does not require that the data “is treated differently” or be
“categorized” in the system.
Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hosken
teaches gathering implicit level-of-interest information, wherein the implicit
information “is processed and stored as an additional and refinement of the
profile data previously stored.” Ans. 19; FF 3. In particular, Hosken teaches
or at least suggests that data regarding implicit action is stored as
“additional” information which is different from the previously stored
explicit data. FF 3. Thus, Hosken to teaches and suggests storing the data
8
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
“as implicit actions [i.e., “additional information”] and as explicit actions
[previously stored].”
On this record, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 11 over Ruffher and Xie, further in view of Hosken.
Claim 13
As for claim 13, Appellants similarly contend “[t]he cited references
disclose following resources in response to a system suggestion and an
explicit user action of user selection or approval” (App. Br. 15), and “do not
teach or suggest following a resource for a user based on implicit user
actions.” App. Br. 16. However, as discussed above, we find no error with
the Examiner’s finding that Xie discloses “the claimed ‘system follow[ing] a
resource based on an implicit action.” Ans. 17. That is, Xie discloses that
based on implied interest in a user’s account, a recommendation is made for
the user to follow a particular resource for the user. Id.', FF 2. Furthermore,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding “Hosken teaches storing implicit and
explicit ratings data for content items provided by the user.” App. Br. 18;
FF 3. That is, in Hosken, implicit information gathered from user actions is
processed and stored as an addition and refinement of the profile data for the
user. FF 3.
Accordingly, on this record, we find no error with the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 over Xie and Hosken in combination with Panyam and
Griffin.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, Appellants repeat the contention set forth for
claim 13 that “[t]he cited references disclose following resource for a user
only in response to a system suggestion and an explicit user action” (App.
9
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
Br. 17). For similarly reasons set forth with respect to claim 13, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 20 over the combination of Panyam, Xie,
Hosken, and Griffin.
Dependent Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites “wherein to determine
said weights of said explicit actions includes a user reading a profile, said
user visiting a community, . . . said user marking a favorite, ... or indicators
of higher than average importance.” Claim 21 (emphasis added). That is,
claim 21 requires that weights of explicit actions are determined according
to merely one of the listed actions. Although Appellants appear to contend
that Hosken does not disclose every “explicit” action listed in claim 21
(App. Br. 17—26), Appellants do concede that, for example, “Hosken appears
to be discussing assigning a rating or favorite to a resource.” App. Br. 20.
That is, Appellants concede that Hosken at least discloses “marking a
favorite.” Id.
On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Hosken, in combination with the other references, teaches or at least
suggests the contested limitation. Ans. 19—21. Accordingly, we also affirm
the rejection of claim 21 over Panyam, Xie, Hosken, and Griffin.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for the other pending
claims. App. Br. 23—24. Thus, we also affirm the rejections of these claims.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10—15, 20—23, and 26—
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal 2017-002647
Application 13/855,572
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11