Ex Parte Jayaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 18, 2018

13859374 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/859,374 04/09/2013 Vinodh Jayaram 45839 7590 06/20/2018 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft POBOX2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 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. 3080.082US 1 8395 EXAMINER MEKONEN, TESFU N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2018 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): USPTO@slwip.com slw@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINO DH JAY ARAM, NIPUN DA VE, and A VERY RANDOLPH MOON Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention presents visual representations of social network information by including a timeline that displays graphical elements from categories of member profile information in chronological order. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 2. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Linkedin Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: accessing member profile information associated with a member of a social network: rendering a visual representation of the accessed member profile information that includes a first visual representation layer associate with a first category of the member profile information and a second visual representation layer associated with a second category of the member profile information, the visual representation further including a visual timeline that displays, in chronological order, graphical elements from both the first and second categories of the member profile information; and presenting via a user interface the rendered visual representation of the accessed member profile information. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Devecka (US 2012/0311462 Al; Dec. 6, 2012) and DiPersia (US 2014/0089816 Al; Mar. 27, 2014). Final Act. 3-13. 2 FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Devecka discloses, among other things, presenting a rendered visual representation of accessed member profile information of a social network via a user interface, where the representation includes first and second layers 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed July 28, 2015 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 14, 2016 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 19, 2016 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed September 15, 2016 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 associated with respective profile information categories. Final Act. 3--4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Devecka does not explicitly teach that the representation includes a visual timeline that displays graphical elements from both categories in chronological order, the Examiner cites DiPersia for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that modifying Devecka's icon-based resume to display elements in chronological order as the Examiner proposes would "seriously degrade" the system's effectiveness by calling attention to the oldest and least important elements. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Devecka and DiPersia collectively would have taught or suggested a visual representation including a visual timeline that displays graphical elements from both recited categories of member profile information in chronological order? This issue turns on whether the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner's findings regarding Devecka's and DiPersia's respective teachings are largely undisputed, including the Examiner's finding that Devecka presents a rendered visual representation of accessed member profile information of a social network via a user 3 Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 interface, where the representation includes first and second layers associated with respective profile information categories. Final Act. 3--4. Rather, this appeal turns solely on the propriety of the Examiner's proposed modification to Devecka, namely whether it would have been obvious to include a visual timeline in Devecka that displays graphical elements from both recited categories of member profile information in chronological order in view of DiPersia. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's proposed combination. Notably, Appellants' arguments presuppose that Devecka's icon-based resumes would be presented in reverse-chronological order to present job positions, skills, and accomplishments from the most important to the least important, and that displaying these elements in chronological order would "seriously degrade" the system's effectiveness by calling attention to the least important elements. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Leaving aside the fact that Appellants cite no evidence to support this contention, Appellants' arguments also presuppose that Devecka's system is limited to icon-based resumes-an assumption that not only runs counter to the Examiner's findings, but also the reference itself. See Ans. 4 (finding that Devecka's system has more features beyond generating conventional resume elements). That Devecka's Abstract notes the system enables a user to generate a personalized interactive business or resume profile representing icon profile elements is telling in this regard, as is Devecka's repeated references to generating icon-based resumes in connection with an embodiment of the invention, and in a non-limiting, permissive sense. See Devecka ,r 100 ("In an embodiment, the professional profile shown in FIG. 3 may be formatted, styled, organized and arranged in a resume-type format.") 4 Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 ( emphasis added); see also id. ,r 20 ("According to embodiments of the present invention, the professional network icon system may be configured to generate an icon based resume, consisting of individually interactive and communicable professional icon elements, based on a user's professional profile.") ( emphases added). That Devecka's system may present any category's most important elements in order of importance in paragraph 79, as Appellants indicate (Reply Br. 2), does not change our conclusion. Not only is importance- based ranking not required given Devecka's use of the permissive term "may" emphasized above, there is no evidence on this record that the most important elements of a professional profile or a resume are necessarily those that are most recent as Appellants seem to suggest. Rather, there may be particular occupations and accomplishments achieved earlier in a member's professional career that may be more relevant or important to a particular user viewing that member's profile. In any event, the Examiner's finding that displaying Devecka's user information in chronological order would make information more desirable and easier for viewers to obtain information for a particular time period (Ans. 5) has a rational underpinning on this record that has not been persuasively rebutted. The Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references is, therefore, supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-20 not argued separately with particularity. 5 Appeal2018-000760 Application 13/859,374 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 underÂ§ 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv) (2015). AFFIRMED 6