Ex Parte Lindstrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

11531154 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111531, 154 09/12/2006
91230 7590 09/02/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kent Lindstrom
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.
079894.0155 1782
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT LINDSTROM and ROSS A. MACKINNON
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531,154 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 22--45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Face book, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
Invention
The claims are directed to processing of online social network data,
and, more particularly, to a method and system for tracking changes to user
content in an online social network. Spec. i-f 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 22 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
22. A method comprising, by one or more computer systems
of an online social network:
accessing a graph data structure comprising a plurality of nodes
and connections between the nodes, each of one or more of the nodes
being associated with one of a plurality of users of the online social
network, each connection between two nodes representing a
relationship between them and establishing a single degree of
separation between them;
accessing information associated with a first user of the online
social network, the first user being associated with a first node of the
plurality of nodes, the information identifying one or more second
nodes of the plurality of nodes that the first user wants to track whether
content associated with the second node has been changed, added to,
or updated on a third-party system that is external to the online social
network, each of the-second nodes being separated in the graph data
structure from the first node by one degree of separation;
determining whether content associated with the second nodes
has been changed, added to, or updated on the third-party system; and
if content has been changed, added to, or updated on the third-
party system, then notifying the first user.
2
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
Rejections
Claims 22--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akella et al. (US 7,539,697 Bl; May 26, 2009) and
Wiseman et al. (US 2007/0136178 Al; June 14, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 22 and 33
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
22 and 33 because the combination of Akella and Wiseman fails to teach or
suggest the accessing, determining, and notifying steps recited in claim 22,
and similarly recited in claim 33. App. Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 2---6. Appellants
argue that giving access to user information based on Wiseman's trust levels
is not equivalent to the recited accessing step and that Wiseman' s activity
monitor of an online marketplace for new/updated listings is not equivalent
to monitoring content on a third-party system that is external to the online
social network. App. Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 3, 4. Appellants assert that the
Examiner is using Wiseman as both the online social network and the third-
party system external to the social network. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
Appellants also argue that the combination of Akella and Wiseman is
improper because the Examiner failed to find a reasonable expectation of
success for the proposed combination and because there was no finding of a
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the
proposed manner. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 5, 6.
The test for obviousness, however, is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references. Id. Each reference cited
by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Akella
and Wiseman teaches or suggests:
permitting access to one or more second users for information
associated with a first user of an online social network, such as
an online marketplace. Access is given based on a designated
trust level given to the second user which allows the second user
to see postings and listing, status, etc. These teachings were
provided at Figure 3 and paragraphs [0030-0031 ], [0036] &
[0038]. The cited portions teach of user relationships and
interactions between at least two users in which a particular trust
level is associated with the users involved and their relationships.
Cited paragraphs [0038-0040] teaches of a listing service that,
"facilitates the promotion and/or advertisement of listings by
distributing notifications to potential buyers ... based at least in
part on their trust association with the posting party . . . The
system 300 includes an activity monitor 310 that can monitor
user activity with respect to posting or updating listings ... " A
user can indicate which users or groups of users to monitor for
new or updated listings and a notification component that can
4
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
notify one or more other users of the new or modified listing.
According to paragraph [0030], two users, who are instant
messaging friends, can be notified of changes made on the
external listing service.
Ans. 11, 12 (citing Wiseman, Fig. 3; i-fi-130, 31, 36, and 38--40).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Wiseman enhances Akella's
online social network (Non-Final Act. 3, 4) by teaching or suggesting
interaction and communication with a separate online marketplace or listing
service and permitting access to information associated with a user. Ans. 11.
Moreover, Wiseman' s activity monitor 310 and notification component
330 operate to monitor activity for new or updated listings, and when such
activity is detected, the notification component can notify others of the new
or modified listing. Non-Final Act. 4, 5; Ans. 11, 12 (citing Wiseman, Fig.
3; ,-r,-r 38--40).
We are, therefore, not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Akella and Wiseman teaches
or suggests the accessing, determining, and notifying steps recited in
independent claim 22, and similarly recited in independent claim 33.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in combining Akella and Wiseman. Contrary to Appellants'
assertions, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
"[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Enhancing an
5
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
online social networking system as taught by Akella, with trust based
interaction for an online marketplace as taught by Wiseman, would have
involved a predictable use of prior art elements ( online trust based
architecture and online social networking design) according to their
established functions. Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence that
doing so would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art or represented an unobvious step over the prior art.
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Appellants' unsupported argument, that such an endeavor is "far
beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill" cannot take the place of factually
supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants also improperly rely on the "teaching, suggestion or
motivation" test to assert the Examiner erred in combining the references.
App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 6. An articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning, however, does not necessitate meeting a formalistic teaching,
suggestion, or motivation requirement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Moreover, the Examiner persuasively points to Wiseman's observation that
"there is much room for improvement regarding Internet-based commerce to
make it safer and to mitigate at least some of the implicit risks of conducting
business in a virtual environment" to provide a rationale for combining the
references. Non-Final Act. 5. Appellants have not demonstrated
persuasively why that reason is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
6
Appeal2015-005972
Application 11/531, 154
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 22 and 33.
Remaining Claims 23-32 and 34-45
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 23-32 and 34--45. App. Br. 5-
11. We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIF~M: the Examiner's rejection of claims 22--45.
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).
AFFIRMED
7