Ex Parte Brunn et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14519723 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/519,723
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
10/21/2014
02/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan F. Brunn
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RSW920140111US1 3340
EXAMINER
CHU, JENQ-KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN F. BRUNN and JENNIFER E. HEINS
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-30. App. Br. 62. 2 Claims 1-10 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed December 2, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed February 28,
2017; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 2, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 20, 2017.
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention generally relates to social-network services.
Spec. ,r 1. The invention determines the relationship between comments
made to a container (e.g., a photo album) and its elements (e.g., photos). Id.
The invention also displays images of the container's elements in a fliptych
manner. Id. ,r 6. For example, one embodiment displays an image of a
selected element or container in the center of the fliptych. Id. ,r 64. The
embodiment further displays and highlights a corresponding list of
comments to the selected element. Id.
Claim 11 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
11. A computer program product for improving understanding
of comments on collections of data, the computer program
product comprising a computer readable storage medium having
program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising
the programming instructions for:
monitoring a social media stream for comments to a
container and elements within said container;
saving said comments to a data structure along with an
identification of said container or an element of said container
upon which said comments are directed;
searching said data structure for comments to said
container or to an element of said container in response to a user
selecting to view comments to said container or said element of
said container;
retrieving said comments to said container or to said
element of said container from said data structure; and
displaying images of elements of said container in a
fliptych manner and a first list of comments in a comments
section, wherein an image of said container or said element of
said container selected by said user is displayed in a center
section of said fliptych, wherein said first list of comments
comprises comments directed to said container or said element
of said container selected by said user which are highlighted.
2
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Dasilva
Assam
Filler
US 2011/0238754 Al
US 2012/0317631 Al
US 2015/0227925 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Sept. 29, 2011
Dec. 13, 2012
Aug. 13, 2015
Claims 11-13, 15, and 18-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Assam and Filler. Final Act. 15-24.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Assam, Filler, and Dasilva. Final Act. 24--30.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ASSAM AND FILLER
The Examiner finds that Assam teaches every limitation recited in
claim 11 except for the fliptych display. Final Act. 15-19. In concluding
that claim 11 's subject matter would have been obvious, the Examiner finds
that Filler teaches a fliptych display of elements. Id. at 18 ( citing
Filler ,r,r 27, 74, Fig. 1).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the recited
display function would have been obvious. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue
that Assam merely permits historical searching of topics of interest to the
user. Id. Likewise, Appellants argue that Filler does not remedy Assam's
deficiency because Filler merely teaches scrolling through a credit-card
collection. Id. According to Appellants, the Examiner has not provided
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
obviousness conclusion. Id. at 35-36.
The disputed limitation of claim 11 recites, in part,
3
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
displaying images of elements of said container in a fliptych
manner and a first list of comments in a comments section,
wherein an image of said container or said element of said
container selected by said user is displayed in a center section of
said fliptych, wherein said first list of comments comprises
comments directed to said container or said element of said
container selected by said user which are highlighted.
Thus, claim 11 requires displaying both the container's elements and the
corresponding comments directed to the container or element. The claim
further requires a fliptych display of the recited elements.
The Examiner finds that Assam's topics correspond to the recited
container. See Final Act. 16 ("Topic's form (i.e. container) threaded
discussions based upon specific topics of interest.") ( emphasis added); see
also Ans. 7 (explaining that Assam teaches "topics/sub-topics (i.e.
container)"). Even assuming, without deciding, this is a reasonable
interpretation of the recited container, the Examiner has not shown that it
would have been obvious to display elements of Assam's container and the
comments in the recited manner for the reasons discussed in detail below.
Specifically, Assam teaches a system for authenticating user identities
in social networks. Assam, Abstract. To illustrate this system, Assam uses
an example of a discussion that has evolved on a social-network site.
Id. ,r,r 93-97. Assam's authentication system monitors the discussion and
authenticates registered users as the discussion occurs. Id. ,r 94. To
authenticate users, the system reviews historical discussions and identifies
topics. Id. The system tracks the discussions about a topic and determines
whether a user's posts on the topic have "credibility." Id. ,r,r 97, 104.
The Examiner's rejection relies on Assam's historical topic searches.
See Final Act. 17. As to this feature, Assam teaches an authentication
4
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
system that displays historical discussions using the topic-based
organization. Assam ,r 94. The Examiner finds that Assam's historical
discussions correspond to claim 11 's recited comments. See Final Act. 17
("Authentication System are adapted to display historical discussions (i.e.
list of comments) for the Entry topics.") (emphasis added). Assam's
historical review and search is not used for displaying a container, its
elements, and its comments. App. Br. 8. Rather, the cited paragraphs
disclose how Assam uses historical discussions to learn more about the
user's interests. See id. ,r,r 97 ( discussing user interests), 104 ( discussing
user credibility).
Nor has the Examiner shown that Filler remedies Assam's deficiency
in this regard. See Final Act. 18. Filler displays a credit-card collection.
See, e.g., Filler Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Filler's wallet corresponds
to the recited container and the credit cards correspond to elements.
Final Act. 18 ( citing Filler ,r 27); see also Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes
that Filler's display method would allow Assam to display "many comments
in a comment section." Ans. 4.
But claim 11 requires "displaying images of elements of said
container in a fliptych manner." App. Br. 63 (emphasis added). Thus,
simply using Filler's display method to Assam's comments (Ans. 4) does
not address claim 11 's requirement of displaying both the container's
elements and the corresponding comments.
To be sure, Assam teaches a blog post with images and comments.
See, e.g., Assam ,r 201, Fig. 12. The Examiner, however, has not explained
how Filler's credit cards-i.e., the recited elements according to the
rejection-relate to Assam's historical topic searches or blog posts.
5
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
Final Act. 18. And it is not apparent how applying Filler's method to Assam
would have rendered Assam's system more "effective" as a "tool for
scrolling." Id. at 19. Considering how unconnected these features and their
uses are, the Examiner's rationale (id.) is insufficient to support the
conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have combined the disclosed
topic searches, blog posts, and an animated credit-card collection to arrive at
the claimed invention. Accord App. Br. 35-36.
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
shown that the Assam-Filler combination teaches or suggests the recited
display step in claim 11, and the Examiner has not provided articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the obviousness
conclusion. App. Br. 5-9, 35-36.
Appellants present other arguments, but we find this argument (id.)
dispositive of the appeal.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 or
dependent claims 12, 13, 15, and 18-2 0.
Independent claim 21 also recites a similar display function, and the
Examiner rejects this claim under the same rationale as claim 11. See Final
Act. 30. So for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 21 and claims 22-30, which depend from claim 21. 3
3 Although the Examiner states that claims 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under
Assam and Filler (see Final Act. 15, Ans. 3), the Answer discusses claims
24, 26, and 27 also in view of Dasilva (Ans. 16-24), as does the Brief (see,
e.g., App. Br. 39). Yet the Examiner did not find that Dasilva teaches the
display step, which is missing from Assam and Filler. See Final Act. 15-24.
So any typographical errors in this regard does not change the outcome here.
6
Appeal2017-009318
Application 14/519,723
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ASSAM, FILLER, AND
DASILVA
In rejecting claims 14, 16, and 17, the Examiner did not rely on the
additional reference, Dasilva, to teach the display step, which is missing
from Assam and Filler. See Final Act. 15-24. Thus, Dasilva does not cure
the deficiency discussed above, and we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 14, 16, and 17 for the same reasons discussed
above in connection with claim 11.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-30.
REVERSED
7