Ex Parte Murarka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14754330 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/754,330 06/29/2015 Neel Ishwar Murarka
91230 7590 09/26/2018
Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
Dallas, TX 75201
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.
079894.2796 7529
EXAMINER
LE,KHOIV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
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 NEEL ISHW AR MURARKA 1
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 5-17, and 19-22. Claims 2--4 and 18
have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed June 29, 2015
(claiming benefit of US 13/689,912 filed Nov. 13, 2012); Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.") filed Sept. 6, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
Feb. 6, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns mobile computing
devices (see Spec. ,r 2}-specifically computer-readable storage media,
devices, and methods for authenticating a user by identifying a set of content
objects including one or more content objects that are socially relevant to a
user and one or more content objects that are socially irrelevant to the user,
the content object identification based on a social graph showing ( or not
showing) a social relationship between the user and the content objects. The
authentication process (method) presents ( on a client device) a request to
select from the set of identified content objects. The process authenticates
the user to access ( the functionality of) the client device based on the
selections-where the process determines whether the selected content
objects correspond to the socially irrelevant content objects. Spec. ,r,r 6, 16,
23-24; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitation emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method comprising:
by a computing device, identifying, from a first plurality
of content objects, a subset of the content objects comprising a
second plurality of content objects, wherein the subset
comprises at least one content object that is socially relevant to
the user and at least one content object that is socially irrelevant
to the user, wherein the content objects are identified based at
least in part on whether in a social graph, a node corresponding
to the user is connected by an edge to a node associated with
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed June 26, 2017; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed
Dec. 28, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
the content object, wherein the edge represents a social
relationship between the content object and the user, wherein
the identifying of the socially irrelevant content objects is based
on the node associated with the content object not being
directly connected to the node corresponding to the user;
by the computing device, providing for presentation on a
client device associated with a user a selection request and the
subset of identified content objects;
by the computing device, receiving an input indicating a
selection of a plurality of the presented content objects by the
user in response to the selection request; and
by the computing device, authenticating the user to
access a functionality of the client device based on a
determination of whether the plurality of selected content
objects correspond to the socially irrelevant content objects of
the subset of identified content objects.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 16, and 19 on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims
1-28 of US Patent No. 9,098,686 B2 ("'686 Patent"). 3 See Final Act. 4--10.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 19-22
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shepard et al.
(US 2010/0229223 Al, published Sept. 9, 2010) ("Shepard") and York et al.
3 The Examiner states that " [ c] laims 1, 16, and 19 are provisionally rejected
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting" (Final
Act. 6 ( emphasis omitted)), but the rejection is over the claims of issued
patent-US Patent No. 9,098,686 B2. Thus, the rejection is not provisional.
We correct the statement of rejection for clarity and consistency.
3
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
(US 2013/0275429 Al, published Oct. 17, 2013 (filed July 17, 2012))
("York"). 4 See Final Act. 11-23.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 14, and 15 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shepard, York, and Crawford
et al. (US 2012/0214442 Al, published Aug. 23, 2012) ("Crawford"). See
Final Act. 23-26.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before is as follows:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Shepard and York would have
collectively taught or suggested "authenticating the user to access a
functionality of the client device based on a determination of whether the
plurality of selected content objects correspond to the socially irrelevant
content objects of the subset of identified content objects," within the
meaning of Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims
16 and 19?
ANALYSIS
The Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant does not provide specific arguments showing error in the
Examiner's double patenting rejection. Appellant instead states that
"Applicant is willing to file a terminal disclaimer to obviate this rejection if
the Examiner indicates that Claims 1, 16, and 19 of this Application are
4 The Examiner's statement of rejection includes canceled claim 18. See
Final Act. 11. We correct the statement of rejection to exclude claim 18 for
clarity and consistency.
4
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
otherwise allowable in their current form." Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we
proforma affirm the double patenting rejection of independent claims 1, 16,
and 19.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious over Shepard
and York. See Final Act. 11-14; Ans. 4--8. Appellant contends Shepard and
York (and, in particular, York) "fail to disclose, teach, or suggest
authenticating the user to access a functionality of the client device based
on a determination of whether the plurality of selected content objects
correspond to the socially irrelevant content objects of the subset of
content objects, as recited in independent Claim 1." (Appeal Br. 8; see
Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant also contends that the
Examiner's proposed combination of Shepard and York is improper, and
that "the Examiner has failed to provide a clear articulation of the reasons
why the proposed Shepard-York combination would have been obvious to
one of skill in the art" (Appeal Br. 9). See Appeal Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 3--4.
The Examiner relies on York to teach identifying socially irrelevant
content objects and authenticating a user to access functionality of a client
device based on a selection of socially irrelevant content objects. See Final
Act. 13; Ans. 4--5 (citing York ,r,r 53, 89, 113, 114, Figs. 6-7). Appellant
contends that York describes "authentication or access to the content object
is determined based on access rules" (Appeal Br. 9) and the authentication is
determined with respect to the content object rather than the device-"York
discloses providing access to a content object, which is not providing access
to a functionality of the client device" (id.). See Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply
Br. 2-3.
5
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
We agree with Appellant that York teaches authenticating access to
content (content objects), not a device (device functionality), based on
predefined rules. See, e.g., York ,r 114. York fails to describe
authenticating access to a device, much less that access to the device is
determined based on the selection of socially-relevant or socially-irrelevant
content objects. It is unclear from the Examiner-cited portions of Shepard
(see Shepard ,r,r 14, 21, 22, 32, 37, Figs. 1-2) and York (supra) how the
combination of Sheppard and York teaches or suggests authentication
utilizing socially-irrelevant content objects as required by Appellant's claim
1. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how York identifies socially-
irrelevant content objects or authenticates access to a device based on the
selection of such content objects. Without further explanation, we are left to
speculate as to how York describes the disputed features of Appellant's
claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Shepard and York teach the authentication
feature of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 16 and 19 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent 5-8, 10-13, 17, and 20-22
depend on claims 1, 16, and 19, respectively, and stand with their respective
independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 19-22.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 9, 14,
and 15, the Examiner has not established on this record that the additionally
cited Crawford reference overcomes or cures the aforementioned deficiency
of Shepard and York. Dependent claims 9, 14, and 15 depend on claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-003326
Application 14/754,330
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 9, 14, and 15 for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
16, and 19 on the non-statutory ground of obviousness-type double
patenting.
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5-17,
and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 16, and 19 on the
non-statutory ground of obviousness-type double patenting, and reverse the
Examiner's rejections of claims 5-15, 17, and 20-22 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7