Ex Parte CHAE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 19, 2019

14229502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/229,502 03/28/2014 58027 7590 02/21/2019 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC 1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR SeByoung CHAE 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. P5683USOO 6403 EXAMINER JACOB, AJITH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2019 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): PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEBYOUNG CHAE and GUIUN OH 1 Appeal2018-006430 Application 14/229 ,502 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-8, 15-17, 19-23, and 26-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method, comprising: receiving, via at least one processor from a first plurality of users, requests for a networked service over at least one network; 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is NHN ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006430 Application 14/229 ,502 selecting, via the at least one processor in response to receiving the requests, a second plurality of users from the first plurality of users based on intrinsic service elements stored in association with the first plurality of users; matching, via the at least one processor according to a first scheme, users among the second plurality of users to form a first group of users based on environmental elements stored in association with the second plurality of users; matching, via the at least one processor according to a second scheme different from the first scheme, users among the second plurality of users to form a second group of users based on the environmental elements; and providing, via the at least one processor, a session of the networked service between the first group of users and the second group of users. REJECTION AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-8, 15-17, 19-23, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2006/0135264 Al; publ. June 22, 2006) in view ofTraversat (US 2002/0188657 Al; publ. Dec. 12, 2002). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 15-17, 19-23, and 26-31. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed Jan. 19, 2018; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 6, 2018; the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Aug. 11, 2017; Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") submitted Mar. 28, 2014; and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 6, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-006430 Application 14/229 ,502 Appellants argue independent claim 1 recites matching, via the at least one processor according to a second scheme different from the first scheme, users among the second plurality of users to form a second group of users based on the environmental elements; and providing, via the at least one processor, a session of the networked service between the first group of users and the second group of users. App. Br. 8-13 ("the disputed limitations") (emphases omitted). Independent claims 17 and 19 recite similar subject matter. The Examiner's rejection only cites to Traversat's paragraphs 67 and 86 for teaching the disputed limitations. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5. Appellants argue: Traversat's disclosure focuses on forming peer groups between networking resources to provide a service to users, but does not group users into user groups to provide the service between at least two user groups, much less as claimed .... . . . Traversat states that peer groups define "a collection of peers connected by a network that share a common set of interests and that have agreed upon a common set of rules to publish, share and access any computer content ( code, data, applications, or other collections of computer representable resources), and communicate among themselves." ... See, e.g., Traversat ,r [0073]. ... That is, a member of a peer group is not a user, but a machine resource capable of providing a common set of services with other machine resources of the peer group. App. Br. 12. Appellants also argue: Each of these statements [on page 4 of the Examiner's Answer], however, still evidences the grouping of machine resources to form an open network computing platform versus the grouping of users, much less "matching [ or match], according to a second scheme different from the first scheme, users [i.e., human beings] 3 Appeal2018-006430 Application 14/229 ,502 of the second plurality of users to form a second group of users based on the environmental elements," as claimed .... Looking more closely at Traversat's paragraphs [0067], [0068], and [0086], it is apparent that Traversat does not teach or suggest grouping of users or grouping of users in the manner claimed. Reply Br. 11-14. We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the cited portions of Traversat coincides with that of Appellants. In particular, the Examiner has not established, and we do not find readily, how the cited portions of Traversat teach the disputed limitations. To affirm the Examiner on this record would require considerable speculation on our part. We decline to engage in speculation. Although Appellants make other arguments in the Briefs, we do not address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 19 and the corresponding dependent claims. OTHER ISSUE We note that in paragraph 113, Traversat discloses, inter alia, "as illustrated in [Figure] 29, a peer 200A may provide implementations of a service in two or more different peer groups in which it is a member peer. In this illustration, peer 200A is a member peer in peer groups 21 OA and 21 OB." (Emphases omitted). We leave it up to the Examiner's discretion to determine whether the disclosure of Figure 29 (i-f 113) in Traversat is relevant to the patentability of the disputed limitations of exemplary claim 1. 4 Appeal2018-006430 Application 14/229 ,502 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 15-17, 19-23, and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 5