Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 18, 201814755924 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 141755,924 06/30/2015 Prabhakaran Krishnamoorthy 106752 7590 04/20/2018 Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham /Linkedln/Microsoft 1 Almaden Boulevard, Floor 12 San Jose, CA 95113 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. 60352-0138 9642 EXAMINER VINCENT, DAVID ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2124 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2018 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): usdocket@h35g.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRABHAKARAN KRISHNAMOORTHY and UDAYSANKARSEN Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-29. Final Act. 1. Claims 7-11, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Representative Claims Representative claims 1, 5, and 29 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a job board system, over a wide area network from a computing device of a job seeker, a data object that is associated with the job seeker and that includes a requirement; in response to receiving said data object, sending, by the job board system over the wide area network to a social network service, a request to access user profile information of the job seeker, wherein the social network service and the job board system are operated by separate entities; receiving, by the job board system over said wide area network, said user profile information from the social network service; calculating, by the job board system, based on the data object and the user profile information from the social network service, a score that indicates a likelihood of satisfying the requirement; and sending the score from the job board system over the wide area network to the computing device of the job seeker. 5. The method of Claim 1 wherein: the method further comprises: extracting a plurality of parameters from the data object; and 1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation. (App. Br. 1 ). 2 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 receiving, from the computing device of the job seeker, a selection by the job seeker that indicates a subset of the plurality of parameters to be used for scoring; the calculating comprises computing a parameter score for each of the plurality of parameters and combining, into a combined score, the parameter scores according to the selection by the job seeker. 29. The method of Claim 1, wherein: said user profile information contains one or more career objectives; calculating the score comprises the job board system calculating the score based on the one or more career objectives. App. Br. 19--20, 26 (Claims App'x). Examiner's Rejections & References A. The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 12, 13, 28, and 292 [sic, claims 1---6, 28, and 29] under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dewar (US 2002/0055866 Al; published May 9, 2002), Elman (US 8,713,000 Bl; issued Apr. 29, 2014), Hyder (US 2008/0140680 Al; published June 12, 2008), and Leite (US 2009/0150166 Al; published June 11, 2009). 3 2 Although the Examiner includes dependent claims 12 and 13 in the statement of the rejection (Final Act. 30-47), these claims were rejected separately (id. at 47-50). We will treat the Examiner's incorrect statement of the rejection as harmless error and, therefore, presume that the Examiner intended to reject claims 1-6, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 3 Claims 2--4 and 28 are not argued separately. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2--4 and 28 are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 B. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dewar, Elman, Hyder, Johns (US 2010/0179916 Al; published July 15, 2010), and Leite. C. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dewar, Elman, Hyder, Annappindi (US 2005/0125259 Al; published June 9, 2005), and Leite. D. The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dewar, Elman, and Hyder. E. The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dewar, Elman, Hyder, and Johns. F. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dewar, Elman, Hyder, and Annappindi. Grouping q{ Claims4 Based upon Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal under rejection A of independent claim 1, dependent claims 5, 6, and 29, and dependent claims 2--4 and 28 (not separately argued), on the basis of representative claims 1, 5, 6, and 29. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular rejected claims or issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Claims 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-27 in rejections B through Fare not argued separately. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 4 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 5-17; Reply Br. 2-10. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-50; Ans. 40-76. We highlight the following additional points. Claim 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: (1) "Leite does not disclose a job board system" but "[i]nstead Leite discloses a resume bank" (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2) and (2) "Dewar's topology is mischaracterized." App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue: Dewar may disclose a system that evaluates employees and potential employees. However, a system that merely assesses people is not the same as a social network service. An assessment system is not social and is not a network. For at least these reasons, Dewar does not disclose a social network service. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants' arguments are misdirected and are not persuasive. Appellants are attacking the Leite reference for failure to teach the 'job board system" recited in claim 1, when the Examiner relies upon Dewar for teaching the claimed feature. See Ans. 40-41 (citing Dewar i-f 103). Similarly, Appellants are attacking the Dewar reference for failure to teach the "social network service" recited in claim 1, when Elman and Leite are 5 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 relied for teaching the claimed feature. See Ans. 43--46 (citing Elman col. 4, 11. 25-30, col. 18, 11. 48-55; Leite i-f 6). Thus, Appellants are challenging the wrong references, and not responding to the Examiner's specific findings. Appellants' challenge to the references individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner's positions. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." (Citations omitted)). Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Elman generally fails to disclose using a wide area network." App. Br. 10-11. We do not agree and find the Examiner's analysis sufficient as set forth in the Final Action and Answer. See Ans. 53-56. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that each of Elman, Dewar, and Leite teaches using a wide area network. Id. (citing Dewar i-f 18 ("Network 104 may for example be the Internet, the World Wide Web, a wide area network."); Elman, Fig. 17; Leite, Fig. 2). Appellants next contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Elman teaches away." App. Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellants argue Id. By saying "never shared with the opportunity system," Elman (col. 24, lines 1-2) expressly teaches away from a job board system sending, over a wide area network to a social network service, a request to access user profile information. We find Appellants' teaching-away argument unpersuasive. "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out 6 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Appellants have merely asserted what the prior art discloses (App. Br. 13), but have not identified how the cited art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed sending/receiving between the job board and the social network service. We are not persuaded that Elman "teaches away" from the combination. In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue "Elman teaches away from a job board system remotely sending a request to a social network system" because "Elman expressly forbids a job board system to remotely access a social network service." Reply Br. 4---6. However, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because Appellants' claim 1 does not require a job board system to "remotely" access a social network service. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1, and further recites: extracting a plurality of parameters from the data object; and receiving, from the computing device of the job seeker, a selection by the job seeker that indicates a subset of the plurality of parameters to be used for scoring; 7 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 the calculating comprises computing a parameter score for each of the plurality of parameters and combining, into a combined score, the parameter scores according to the selection by the job seeker. App. Br. 20 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Dewar does not teach the claimed "subset of the plurality of parameters." Reply Br. 6-8. We disagree with Appellants. As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 59), Dewar explicitly teaches a plurality of parameters (e.g., 0027-0076, 0078-0092[).] "Typically, system server 106 tests for certain ones of the competencies that have been proven to be predictive of successful performance of the type of job for which the applicant is being considered", 0077). At the very least, a job seeker has the control of what parameters are used by how/if said job seeker responds to questions/test. (Emphasis added). In other words, we agree with the Examiner that Dewar's teaching of "certain ones of the competencies" meets the claimed "subset of the plurality of parameters" because a subset can be broadly interpreted to encompass "certain ones." 5 5 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description 8 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 alia: Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1, and further recites, inter receiving, from the computing device of the job seeker, a weight associated with one or more parameters of the plurality of parameters to be used for scoring; the calculating comprises computing a parameter score for each of the plurality of parameters and combining, into a combined score, the parameter scores according to the weight associated with each of the one or more parameters. App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App'x). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Elman 's search criterion is mischaracterized as a weight." App. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants argue "sorting by Elman does not indicate a likelihood of anything. Therefore, Elman does not disclose receiving, from the computing device of the job seeker, a weight associated with one or more parameters of the plurality of parameters to be used for scoring." Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants are attacking the Elman reference for failure to teach the "weighted" claim term, when the Examiner relies upon Dewar for teaching the claimed feature. See Ans. 62 (citing Dewar i-f 90). Thus, Appellants are challenging the wrong reference, and thus Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's findings. contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 9 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 Claim 29 Claim 29 depends from independent claim 1, and further requires "said user profile information contains one or more career objectives" and that "calculating the score comprises the job board system calculating the score based on the one or more career objectives." App. Br. 26 (Claims App 'x) (emphasis added). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Elman's search criterion is mischaracterized as a career objective" (App. Br. 14--15), and "Ryder's endorsements are mischaracterized" because "endorsements are not career objectives" (App. Br. 16). In particular, Appellants argue "Elman teaches search criteria and a social network profile that are distinct concepts that should not be conflated. As such, the search criteria of Elman are not user profile information from a social network service." App. Br. 15. Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Hyder (Title) provides a score to a recruiter to detect resume fraud. A recruiter is not a job seeker, and a score for jobseeker profile validity is not the same as a score that predicts job search success. The score of Claim 29 is meaningful to the job seeker. Whereas, the score of Hyder is meaningful to an employer. App. Br. 16-17. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner's analysis sufficient as set forth in the Final Action and Answer. See Ans. 65-68. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hyder teaches a user profile information containing one or more career 10 Appeal2017-007954 Application 14/755,924 objectives. Id. (citing Hyder i-f 25 ('jobseeker resume")). Also, the Examiner finds, and we agree, each of Hyder and Dewar teaches calculating the score based on the one or more career objectives. Id. (citing Hyder i-f 40 ("scoring profile"); Dewar, i-f [0139], Table One ("Scores on Education and Work-Related Experience are derived from candidates' responses to questions regarding developmental influences, self-esteem, work history and work-related values and attitudes.")). Therefore, based on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for claims 1, 5, 6, and 29. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±) AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation