Ex Parte LengDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201713637116 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/637,116 09/25/2012 Shanshu Leng AB1-0165US 4828 29150 7590 LEE & HAYES, PLLC 601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE SUITE 1400 SPOKANE, WA 99201 EXAMINER ORTIZ DITREN, BELIX M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2017 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): lhpto@leehayes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHANSHU LENG Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,1161 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Alibaba Group Holding Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a ranking and searching method and apparatus based on interpersonal distances. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for ranking based on interpersonal distances, comprising: obtaining, by a ranking server, objects queried by a query request initiated by a user from a user client and obtaining a reference user group corresponding to each queried object; obtaining, by the ranking server, interpersonal distances between users in the reference user group and the user who initiates the query request, and obtaining rating scores of each of the objects queried by the query request that are given by the users in the reference user group; and determining, by the ranking server, a user relationship ranking index of each of the objects queried based on the interpersonal distances and the rating scores, and ordering the objects based on respective user relationship ranking indices of the objects. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Meggs US 2009/0063304 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Kenedy US 2012/0131034 A1 May 24, 2012 Spiegel US 2012/0278317 A1 Nov. 1, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1—6 and 17—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Spiegel. Final Act. 6—13, 14—18. 2 Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 Claims 7—16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Meggs. Final Act. 13—14, 18— 25; Ans. 20. Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Kenedy. Final Act. 25—27. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that, based on the current record, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—9 and 17—20. However, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10—16. Claims 1—9 and 17—20 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Spiegel discloses “ordering the objects based on respective user relationship ranking indices of the objects,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—9. Specifically, Appellant argues Spiegel discloses matching people, not objects. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5—6. Additionally, Appellant argues there is nothing in Spiegel that discloses ordering objects based on a ranking. App Br. 10; Reply Br. 6—9. The Examiner finds Spiegel discloses the ordering step recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Spiegel; 26, 48, 52, 83, 85); Ans. 22—23 (citing Spiegel 26, 48, 52, 61). More specifically, the Examiner finds because, inter alia, ‘“the matching service generates or retrieves, for each 3 Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 user community, a list (index) of the products or other items that characterize that community,’” Speigel teaches that “the index of each object [is] based on the interpersonal distances and the rating scores.” Final Act. 8 (quoting Spiegel 1 85). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Cleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art”). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Spiegel discloses “ordering the objects based on respective user relationship ranking indices of the objects,” as recited in claim 1. Spiegel is directed to matching users together, not generating a list of ranked objects in response to a query. See Spiegel Abstract (“A computer-implemented matching service matches users to other users, and/or to user communities, based at least in part on a computer analysis of event data reflective of user behaviors.”), 13 (“The present invention relates to social networking systems, and to associated data mining methods for identifying people 4 Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 having similar interests or characteristics.”). To the extent the cited sections discuss objects, it is in terms items used to determine whether a person or a group is a match. See id. at | 83. The sections of Spiegel relied on by the Examiner do not disclose ordering objects based on ranking. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Spiegel discloses ordering step is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claim 17, which recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation discussed above, and dependent claims 2—5 and 18—20. Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Kenedy or Meggs cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 6—9 for similar reasons. 5 Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 Claims 10—16 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Meggs teaches “obtaining rating scores of the reference merchants,” as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 12-13. The Examiner finds Meggs teachs the obtaining step recited in claim 10. Final Act. 22 (citing Meggs H 19, 21, 61, 67); Ans. 23—24. More specifically, the Examiner finds Meggs teaches: ‘“applying an importance rating predetermined by at least said one user’, see para. [0021], para 61, para 67 - ranking merchants).” Final Act. 22. Our reviewing court guides that “the question under 35 USC § 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807—08 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, “[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed. . . .” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Additionally, the skilled artisan is “[a] person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Furthermore, there is no requirement in an obviousness analysis for the prior art to “contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. Meggs teaches ranking various merchants based on predetermined 6 Appeal 2016-007465 Application 13/637,116 criteria. See Meggs H 61, 67. At a minimum, a ranking suggests that the predetermined criteria is used to obtain a rating which is used to rank the merchants. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, along with the rejection of dependent claims 11—16. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10—16. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—9 and 17—20. 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(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation