Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

14755924 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

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