Ex Parte Gustafson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2016

12495022 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

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. 12/495,022 06/30/2009 Steven Matt Gustafson 231106-1 (NBCU:0066) 2091 12640 7590 03/10/2016 NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. PO Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER MUELLER, KURT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN MATT GUSTAFSON, ABHA MOITRA, FENG XUE, DAVID BRIAN BRACEWELL, and JESSE NEUENDANK SCHECHTER ____________ Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of clams 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–29, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. A method for extracting and analyzing discussions to identify prospects of a subject using at least one processor, the method comprising: initializing queries related to the subject and a set of data sources utilizing subject information and one or more data source names; extracting discussions from the set of data sources utilizing the queries; extracting significant discussions from the extracted discussions by applying discussions quality methods to the extracted discussions; identifying websites corresponding to the significant discussions; extracting significant websites from the identified websites by applying websites quality methods to the identified websites; determining a website influence of each of the significant websites by determining corresponding attributes by applying analysis methods to the significant websites; identifying a discussion influence of each of the significant discussions based on the website influence of each of the corresponding significant websites; weighting the significant discussions and the significant websites utilizing the discussion influence of each of the Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 3 significant discussions and the website influence of each of the significant websites; and determining the prospects of the subject based on the weighting of the significant discussion and significant websites. Prior Art Monteverde US 2004/0107363 A1 June 3, 2004 Ward US 2007/0294281 A1 Dec. 20, 2007 Newton US 2009/0281851 A1 Nov. 12, 2009 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ward, Monteverde, and Newton. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int 'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation,” and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 4 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirectTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322. “Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Id. (citing Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571–72). Appellants contend the Examiner erred by not construing the claim terms “significant websites,” “website influence,” “significant discussions,” “discussion influence,” and “prospects” in light of exemplary embodiments disclosed in paragraphs 24 and 33 of Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 8– 15; Reply Br. 2–9. Paragraph 24 of Appellants’ Specification gives non- limiting examples of what “significant discussions,” “significant websites,” and “prospects” may be. Paragraph 33 gives non-limiting examples of what “website influence” and “discussion influence” may be. Here, the particular examples of “significant websites,” “website influence,” “significant discussions,” “discussion influence,” and Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 5 “prospects” appearing in paragraphs 24 and 33 of the written description may not be read into claim 1, because the claim language is broader than the examples. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “significant websites,” when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses the trustworthy websites taught by Monteverde. Appellants also do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings that the scope of “significant discussions,” “discussion influence,” “website influence,” and “prospects,” encompasses the electronic discussions and weightings taught by Ward. See Final Act. 5–6. Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided motivation to combine Ward, Monteverde, and Newton. App. Br. 16–17. Appellants’ contention is based on the premise that the scope of “significant websites” excludes the trustworthy websites of Monteverde, which we find unpersuasive as discussed above. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, and 24–26, which fall with claim 1. We find Appellants’ arguments for the patentability of claims 2–4, 8, 10, 19, 23, and 27–29 (17–24) unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–29 is affirmed. Appeal 2014-003895 Application 12/495,022 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED