Ex Parte Fishkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2018

13337957 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/337,957 12/27/2011 140282 7590 Murtha Cullina LLP One Century Tower 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 09/26/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert E.F. Fishkin 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. 007004-0012 8481 EXAMINER KNIGHT, LETORIA G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2018 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): ipdocketing@murthalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT E.F. FISHKIN, BENJAMIN ETHAN TAITELBAUM, and JESSICA MARGOLIN Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23. Claims 6, 9-11, and 22 are canceled. Appeal Br. 22, 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify ReFrame-It, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 Invention Appellants disclose a group discussion involving a general population that comments on information and a sample of the population that rates the comments of the general population. Abstract. Exemplary Claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A method for reducing the impact of a disproportionally mobilized faction on a deliberative process comprising the steps of: providing a server comprising a processor and connected to a communications network; identifying a sample of a population; providing information to the sample, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; deliberating, by the sample, about the information; providing the information to the population, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; receiving comments in the form of annotations to the information relating to the information from members of the population, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; providing the comments to the population, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; receiving ratings of the comments from members of the sample, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; prioritizing the comments based on the ratings, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; and, providing the ratings and prioritized comments to the population, via software executing on the server, over the communications network; wherein the information, comments, and ratings are provided to and received from the population using an interactive webpage; 2 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 wherein the comments, prioritization, and ratings are continually updated in real time for the duration of a deliberative process; and wherein the deliberative process is administered using an online platform. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 10-20. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Fishkin et al. (WO 01/33466 Al; published May 10, 2001) ("Fishkin") and Le (US 2008/0098294 Al; published Apr. 24, 2008). Final Act. 21--47. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Fishkin, Le, Grant et al. (US 2008/0184122 Al; published July 31, 2008), and Sekhar (US 2007/0099162 Al; published May 3, 2007). Final Act. 47-69. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 Findings and Contentions In rejecting claim 1 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the Examiner concludes the claimed process of "identifying, providing, and receiving information [is] merely [the] general concept[] of handling product data [ opinion poll comments and results] that could be performed mentally and" is directed to similar concepts previously identified as abstract. Final Act. 11 (last alteration in original) ( citing Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non- precedential)); see also Ans. 10-11. In particular, the Examiner notes several key recitations (deliberating, by the sample, about the information; 3 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 receiving comments from members of the population; and providing comments to the population) "do not impose any requirements that would make the invention impossible to carry out manually." Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 3--4 ( citing In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F .3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner further concludes claim 1 does not have additional recitations that make claim 1 significantly more than the underlying abstract idea because claim 1 amounts "to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the surveying and data analysis industry." Final Act. 18; see also Ans. 12-13. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because claim 1 does "not merely claim a result" and because claim 1 recites "a specific way to achieve a result that does not preempt use of any abstract idea." Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend claim 1 is "focused on specific means that improve the relevant technology and do not merely claim a result that is itself an abstract idea." Appeal Br. 8 ( citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Reply Br. 4 ("The claimed invention improves the technological environment ... of the Internet"). Appellants further argue that "[i]t is not possible to provide the comments and ratings as claimed outside of an interactive website-and the claims specify this." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants also argue that: Regardless of whether an abstract idea to which the claims are directed can be properly identified, elements such as ["a sample rating comments from the population, prioritizing the comments based on the ratings, and then providing the ratings and prioritized comments back to the population"] confirm that the 4 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 claims are directed to an invention that is significantly more specific than the abstract idea itself. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4--5. Analysis With respect to the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or [a] new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. There are implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified inÂ§ 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions "from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts." Id. ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if so, determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent- ineligible concept itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If a claim proves to be unpatentable as a result of this two-part analysis, no additional 5 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 determination regarding preemption is necessary. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility," as "questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by theÂ§ 101 analysis." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Step 1: We agree with the Examiner that the focus of claim 1 is on identifying, providing, and receiving information using processes that could be performed mentally (or with the use of pen and paper). See Final Act. 11. Appellants argue claim 1 is "focused on specific means that improve the relevant technology" (Appeal Br. 8) and that "[i]t is not possible to provide the comments and ratings as claimed outside of an interactive website" (id. at 9). However, claim 1 is directed to the use of the recited technologies "to provide a generic environment in which to carry out the" steps for receiving and providing information, comments, and ratings. See TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 611. The software, server, communications network, and interactive webpage recitations serve the same role a whiteboard and dry-erase marker could play in performing the general deliberative process with a small population and sample thereof. Appellants also argue the claimed invention improves the Internet. Reply Br. 4. However, the claimed invention attempts to improve group discussion or deliberation. Spec. ,r 9. Such a problem is not a technological problem because it is not "a challenge particular to the Internet." TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 613 (quoting DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256-57 (Fed.Cir.2014)). 6 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract, patent-ineligible idea. Step 2: We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 's additional recitations merely make use of generic computer and network elements to perform generic functions "that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the surveying and data analysis industry." Final Act. 18; see also Ans. 12-13; Spec. ,r,r 26, 36, 49. Appellants argue additional recitations such as "a sample rating comments from the population, prioritizing the comments based on the ratings, and then providing the ratings and prioritized comments back to the population" make claim 1 "significantly more specific than the abstract idea itself." Appeal Br. 12. However, these recitations merely provide more specificity to the abstract idea discussed above without directing claim 1 to something more such as solving "a technological problem in 'conventional industry practice."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ( quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 178 (2017)). Specificity alone is insufficient to make a claim significantly more than an underlying patent-ineligible concept. Cf Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1972) (providing an example ofa narrowly-tailored, patent-ineligible method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form into binary). For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the additional recitations of claim 1 fail to make claim 1 significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. 7 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23, which Appellants do not argue separately. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) Findings and Contentions In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner finds Fishkin's use of an advisory board or other body to select polling topics, combined with Fishkin' s identification of random samples of a given population and with Fishkin's small group discussions of expert dialogues, teaches or suggests identifying a sample of a population, receiving comments from members of a population, and receiving ratings of the comments from members of a sample. See Final Act. 21-24 (citing, e.g., Fishkin 7, 10, 15); Ans. 13, 16-20. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Fishkin does not disclose the claimed relationship between the sample and the population." Appeal Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue: If Fishkin's experts are now considered the population, then Fishkin's random sample cannot be considered the claimed sample, since Fishkin's random sample is not taken from the population of Fishkin' s experts. On the other hand, if Fishkin' s sample is now considered the claimed population, Fishkin's experts cannot be considered to be the claimed sample, since Fishkin's experts are not taken from Fishkin's random sample. Id. at 16; see also Reply Br. 6-7. Analysis The Examiner finds a small group holding a discussion may already constitute members of a larger body of experts because "[ w ]hen the participants are already relatively expert about the area of discussion, the 8 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 moderator may begin the discussion by asking whether or not the background materials adequately cover the issues." Ans. 19; see also Fishkin 11. Thus, the Examiner finds the small group's submission of questions for discussion by pre-selected experts teaches or suggests both the population providing comments and the sample providing ratings. See Ans. 19; see also Fishkin 12. That is, either the questions to the pre-selected experts represent comments from the population, and the pre-selected experts' discussion represent the ratings, or discussion by pre-selected experts represents comments from the population, and the small group's further discussions represent the ratings. See Ans. 19. The Examiner's findings are premised on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claimed population as encompassing all those who are "relatively expert" about an area of discussion (thus making the "pre- selected experts" a sample of the "relatively expert" population). See id. The claimed population is not some nebulous set of people sharing some common trait such as relative expertise. The population of claim 1 receives information, comments on the information, and receives ratings and prioritized comments. See Spec. ,r,r 27, 29, 57, and 109. Thus, the claimed population is engaged in a deliberative process. See Spec. ,r 16. Moreover, the Specification explicitly discloses that experts who may facilitate deliberation by the population are distinct from the population itself. See, e.g., id. ,r 10 (both the "general population" and "experts" can comment on information), Fig. 2 ( experts 275 depicted as distinct from population 208 and sample 222, a subset of population 208). Fishkin similarly distinguishes between members of a population and outside experts. See, e.g., Fishkin 12, Fig. 1 (expert and participant 9 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 terminals identified separately), Fig. 3 (initial conclusions from deliberations submitted for expert review), Fig. 4 (expert dialogues distinguished from dialogues within small groups). Fishkin discloses that in a small group discussion, "[ w ]hen the participants are already relatively expert about the area of discussion, the moderator may begin the discussion by asking whether or not the background materials adequately cover the issues." Id. at 11. Nonetheless, use of a common trait (i.e., expertise) between the members of the small group and the experts is insufficient. In particular, the Examiner's findings do not show that Fishkin's experts deliberate with the small group members rather than facilitate deliberation by the small group members. For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not show that Fishkin teaches or suggests the claimed relationship between a sample and a population from which the sample is drawn (i.e., identified), where the population as a whole provides comments and members of the sample from the population rate the comments. See Appeal Br. 14. Furthermore, the Examiner's findings fail to show that Le, Grant, or Sekhar cure the noted deficiency of Fishkin. See, e.g., Ans. 14--16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 12-21, which contain similar recitations and are rejected based on similarly unpersuasive findings. 10 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Because we affirm at least one rejection of each claim, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-21, and 23. In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain whether and to what extent prior art user-driven moderation systems teach or suggest the claimed invention or recitations thereof. See, e.g., CmdrTaco (Rob Malda), Slashdot Moderation (Sept. 9, 1999), available at https://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 11 Appeal2017-004945 Application 13/337,957 APPENDIX Excerpts from CmdrTaco (Rob Malda), Slashdot Moderation (Sept. 9, 1999), available at https://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml (retrieved Sept. 24, 2018) 12 9/24/2018 â€¢ Cloud â€¢ Hardware â€¢ Linux â€¢ Management â€¢ Mobile â€¢ Science â€¢ Security â€¢ Storag~ Slash.dot lVIoderation last updated 9.9.99 by CmdrTaco Slashdot Moderation This document will attempt to explain the moderation system that lies underneath Slashdot's vast comment section. It will try to explain some of the history of the system, as well as how it works ( or doesn't work) from both the perspective of the user, and the moderator. It is always in flux. Why Goals History Before Moderation Hand Picked Few 400 Lucky Winners Today:Most.Anyone Who How F.AQ I just got moderator access, what do I do? Why can't I suddenly moderate any more? I found a comment that was unfairly moderated! Is this censorship? What is a Good Comment? .A Bad Comment? What is "Karma"? 3 Days Is Not Enough Time To Moderate! If I Post in a Discussion I moderated, Why Don't I get My Points Back? How can I improve my Karma? Ideas for the Future Why? .As you might have noticed, Slashdot gets a lot of comments. Thousands a day. Tens of thousands a month . .At any given time, the database holds 40,000+ comments . .A single story might have a thousand replies- and lets be realistic: Not all of the comments are that great. In fact, some are down right terrible-- but others are truly gems. The moderation system is designed to sort the gems and the crap from the steady stream of information that flows through the pipe . .And wherever possible, it tries to make the readers of the site take on the responsibility. The goal is that each reader will be able to read Slashdot at a level that they find appropriate. The impatient can read nothing at all but the original stories. Some will only want to read the highest rated of comments, some will want to eliminate anonymous posts, and others will want to read every last drip of data, from the First Posts! to the spam. The system we've created here will make that happen. Or at least, it sure will try ... Goals Promote Quality, Discourage Crap Make Slashdot as readable as possible for as many people as possible. Do not require a huge amount of time from any single moderator. Do not allow a single moderator a 'reign of terror' History In order to understand the system, it might help to understand how we got there. It wasn't random, it was trial and error and progression. I'm constantly tweaking and changing, trying to squeeze more out. Trying to make a more efficient, more fair system. Before Moderation https://slashdot. org/moderation .shtml 2/6 9/24/2018 Slashdot Moderation In the beginning Slashdot was small. We got dozens of posts each day, and it was good. The signal was high, the noise was low. Moderation was unnecessary because we were nobody. It was a different world then. Each day we grew, adding more and more users, and increasing the number of comments submitted. As this happened, many users discovered new and annoying ways to abuse the system. The authors had but one option: Delete annoying comments. But as the system grew, we knew that we would never be able to keep up. We were outnumbered. Hand Picked Few So I picked people to help. Just a few. 25 or so at the end. They were given the simple ability to add or subtract points to comments. The primary function of these brave souls was to weed out spam and First Post and flame bait. Plus, when they found smart stuff, to bring it out. The system worked pretty well, but as Slashdot continued to grow, it was obvious that these 25 people wouldn't be enough to keep up with the thousands of posts we were getting each day. It was obvious that we needed more. 400 Lucky Winners So we picked more the only way we could. Using the actions of the original 25 moderators, we picked 400 more. We picked the 400 people who had posted good comments. Comments that had been flagged as the cream of Slashdot. Immediately several dozen of these new moderators had their access revoked for being abusive, but they settled down. At this time I began to experiment with ways of restricting the power of moderators to prevent abuses. 25 people are easy to keep an eye on, but 400 is another matter. I knew that someday I would have even less control since I intended to eventually give access to even more people. While fundamentally moderators still added and subtracted points, the number of points they were given dropped from hundreds to dozens. As time went on, I began working on the next phase: mass moderation. I learned a lot from having so many moderators. I learned that I needed to limit the power of each person to prevent a single rogue from spoiling it for everyone. And Then we took the next step: Today: Most Anyone Today any regular Slashdot reader is probably eligible to become a moderator. A variety of factors weigh into it, but if you are logged in when you browse Slashdot comments, you might occasionally be granted moderator access. Don't worry about it- Just keep reading this document and learn what to do about it! Who It's probably the most difficult part of the process: Who is allowed to moderate. On one hand, many people say "Everyone", but I've chosen to avoid that path because the potential for abuse is so great. Instead, I've set up a few simple rules for determining who is eligible to moderate. Logged In User If the system can't keep track, it won't work, so you gotta log in. Sorry if you're paranoid, but this system demands a certain level of accountability. Regular Slashdot Readers The scripts track average accesses from each logged in user. It then selects eligible users who read an average number of times. The homepage doesn't count either. It then picks users from the middle of the pack- no obsessive compulsive reloaders, and nobody who just happened to read an article this week. Long Time Readers The system throws out the newest few thousand accounts. This prevents people from creating new accounts to simply get moderator access, but more importantly, means that newbies will have to be part of the community for a few weeks before they gain access to the controls to a system they don't understand. Willing to Serve If you don't want to moderate, just visit your user preferences, and set yourself as 'Unwilling' Positive Contributors Slashdot tracks your "Karma" (see the FAQ). If you have non negative Karma, this means you have posted more good comments than bad, and are eligible to moderate. This weeds out spam accounts. So the end result is a pool of eligible users that represent (hopefully) average, positive slashdot contributors. Occasionally (well, every 30 minutes actually) the system checks the number of comments that have been posted, and gives a proportionate amount of eligible users "Tokens". When any user acquires a certain number of tokens, they become a moderator. This means that you'll need to be eligible for many of these slices in order to actually gain access. It all works to make sure that everyone takes turns, and nobody can abuse the system, and that only "regular" readers become moderators (as opposed to some random newbie;) How When a moderator is given access, they are given a number of points of influence to play with. Each comment they moderate deducts a point. When they run out of points, they are done serving until next time it is their tum. https://slashdot. org/moderation .shtml 3/6 9/24/2018 Slashdot Moderation Moderation takes place by selecting an adjective from a drop down list that appears next to comments. Descriptive words like 'Flamebait' or 'Informative'. Bad words will reduce the comments score by a single point, good words increase a comments score by a single point. All comments are scored on an absolute scale from -1 to 5. Logged in users start at 1 ( although this can vary from O to 2 based on their overall contribution to discussions) and anonymous users start at O. Moderators can not participate in the same discussion as both a moderator and a poster. This is to prevent abuses, and while it is one of the more controversial aspects of the system, I'm sticking to it. There are enough lurkers that moderate, that if you want to post, feel free. Moderation points expire after 3 days if they are left unused. You then go back into the pool and might someday be . . given access agam. Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check. FAQ I just got moderator access, what do I do? The fact that you are reading this document proves that you are already on the right track. Why can't I suddenly moderate any more? Moderator access only lasts 3 days. You can't moderate and post in the same discussion. Do you still have any moderator points left? You only got 5 ... If you unfairly moderate a comment, you might have your access revoked, although this is almost never the reason people lose access. I found a comment that was unfairly moderated! Lemme know and I'll look at it. Sometimes I might agree and revoke access to a moderator. Usually I disagree and let it go. Its difficult to be the judge on this stuff since it is so subjective. Is this censorship? We're not technically deleting anything. In fact "We" technically aren't really doing much at all. The masses are doing this for themselves (in theory anyway). And you are always given the option of clicking the threshold control over to '-1' and reading everything uncut, so I really have a hard time saying this truly is censorship. But if you really want to call it that, I can't really argue. We're trying to make as many people happy as possible here- if you don't like something, you can probably change it in the user preferences to more suit your tastes anyway. What is a Good Comment? A Bad Comment? Good Comments are insightful. You read them and are better off having read them. They add new information to a discussion. They are clear, hopefully well written, or maybe amusing. These are the gems we're looking for, and they deserve to be promoted. Average Comments might be slightly offtopic, but still might be worth reading. They might be redundant. They might be a 'Me Too' article. They might say something painfully obvious. They don't detract from the discussion, but they don't necessarily significantly add to it. They are the comments that require the most attention from the moderators, and they also represent the bulk of the comments. (Score: 0-1) Bad Comments are flamebait. Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense. They detract from the article they are attached to. What is Karma? Karma is an internal value Slashdot uses to determine things like initial posting score, and moderation eligibility. To you, karma is a label like "Good" or "Bad". Many things on Slashdot affect karma, including moderation done to your comments, accepted story submissions, and meta moderating. https://slashdot. org/moderation .shtml 4/6 9/24/2018 Slashdot Moderation 3 Days Is Not Long Enough To Moderate! On the contrary, I think it's too long, although maybe I should change it to like "24 hours after you first are informed that you have moderator access". My reasoning is pretty simple: I don't want people to stockpile their points. I want people to use them or lose them. Otherwise people will hold on to their X points until a story comes on that they have a strong opinion in, and they will be tempted to moderate the discussion so as to sway things "their way". By expiring points quickly, moderators are encouraged to use them. Sometimes their points might expire unused, but thats ok: the system will just give points to someone else. Why Don't I get my points back after I post in a discussion I moderated? Basically because of the following scenario: Bob Moderates a Discussion Bob Waits Until Tomorrow When the Discussion Leaves the Homepage and Activity Dies Off. Bob goes into dead discussion, posts and comment, reclaims his moderator points. Lather. Rinse. Repeat This scenario would easily allow a user to continue to have moderator access for as long as they felt like it. Simply disallowing the retrieval of points makes this impossible. Ideas for the Future This is a system in development. It may never be done, but here are some of the ideas I'm currently mulling over for incorporation into a future version of the moderation system. They might not happen. Hell, I'm lazy, I'd prefer it if they didn't have to! But if I decide that they are for the best, I'll implement them somehow. IP Restrictions: No single IP can post more than X comments per story. While this has problems, it would help prevent the occasional moron who likes to come in and post a dozen comments in a row on an article that really don't say anything. This could take a variety of shapes: No single IP being allowed to post more than 10% of all comments in a subject? A hard limit of 10 comments per IP per story? 5 minute delay between posts from any IP? Each method has ups and downs, but would probably solve the problem. The problem is that it would cause other problems so I'm not really planning on implementing this yet, but if I do, it will be fairly lenient. Only allow "Logged In Anonymous Posting". It would be a simple extra hurdle that people would be required to jump over. It might help to eliminate some knee jerk reaction posts, but the naysayers will argue that this prevents them from being anonymous (please note that the logged in AC is every bit as Anonymous as the logged out AC as far as the system is concerned, so the only real difference is that you would have had to at some point create an account). This has up sides and downsides so I have no real opinion on this at all. How can I improve my Karma? What follows was originally a story submission by dkh2. It seemed to me that it would better serve readers here: 10 tips for improving your Karma: Post intelligently: Interesting, insightful, thought provoking comments are rated higher on a fairly consistent basis. Post calmly: Nobody likes a flame war. In fact, more times than not the flamer gets burned much more than their target. "Flaim Bait" is hit quickly and consistently with "-1" by moderators. As the bumper sticker says ... "Don't be a dick." Post early: If an article has over a certain number of posts on it already yours is less likely to be moderated. This is, less likely both statistically (there are more to choose from) and due to positioning (as a moderator I have to actually find your post waaay at the end of a long list.) Post often: If you only post once a month you can expect your karma to remain low. Also, lively discussion in an open forum is what makes Slashdot really "Rock the Casbah." Stay on topic: Off topic posts are slapped quickly and consistently with "-1" by moderators. Be original: Avoid being redundant and just repeating what has already been said. (Did I really just say that?) Yes, being moderated as "redundant" is worth "-1" to your post and your karma. Especially to be avoided are the "what he said" and "me too" posts. https://slashdot. org/moderation .shtml 5/6 9/24/2018 Slashdot Moderation Read it before you post: Does it say what you really want it to say? Check your own spelling and grammar. Occasionally, a perfectly beneficial post is passed over by moderators because of this completely irrelevant to content feature. This is also a good approach to checking yourself for what you're really saying. Can't tell you the number of times I've stopped myself from saying the opposite of what I meant by checking my own s&g. Log in as a registered user: I know, this sounds obvious but, "Anonymous Coward" does not have a karma rating. You can't reap the perceived benefits of your own accidental brilliance if you post anonymously. Have pride in your work and take credit for it. Read Slashdot regularly: You can't possibly contribute to the discussion if you're not in the room. Come to the party and play. Slashdot Today SmHfaY- Saturday: Friday: ThursdaY- vVednesc.laY- TuesdaY. MondaY- Submit Story: System going down in 5 minutes. FAQ. St01y Archive Hall of Fame Advertising Terms Privacy Statement Ont-out Choices About Feedback Mobile Vie\v Blog Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster. Copyright Â© 2018 SlashdotMedia. All Rights Reserved. Close Slashdot Working ... https://slashdot. org/moderation .shtml 6/6 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. 13/337,957 2017-004945 Notice of References Cited Examiner Art Unit 3623 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) "Excerpts from CmdrTaco (Rob Malda), Slashdot Moderation (Sept. 9, 1999), u bttps:/./slash::.tot.org/n1oderation_.sht.n1l (retrieved Sept. 24, 2018)." V w X *A copy of this reference 1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Page 1 of 1 Classification Classification