Ex Parte Phillips et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13026886 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017)

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.
13/026,886 02/14/2011 Dean Aris Phillips 5476-001 US 5735
24510 7590
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
P.O. Box 2758
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
AHN, SANGWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
PatentProsecutionRes @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEAN ARIS PHILLIPS, JOHN ARIS PHILLIPS,
JAMES XU, BRIAN WILLIAMS, and PETER KELLY
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
Technology Center 2100
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—30. An oral hearing was conducted on January 9, 2017. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to gathering and analyzing data on
individuals, comprising a processor connected to a network, a database
server connected to the processor, a user database connected to the
processor, and a user interface operable to interact with the processor and the
user database, wherein the processor is operable to obtain information
associated with a reference individual from sources connected to the
network. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for gathering and analyzing data on individuals,
comprising:
a processor operable to be connected to a network;
a database server connected to the processor;
a user database connected to the processor; and
a user interface operable to interact with the processor and
the user database;
wherein the processor is operable to
obtain information associated with at least one reference
individual from at least one source connected to the network and
store the information in the database server, wherein at least one
of the sources includes a social network database and the
information includes related individual information, a related
individual being an individual associated with or related to the
reference individual and having at least one calculated relevance
2
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
value indicating a strength of a connection between the reference
individual and the related individual;
receive a search request from the user interface, search the
information stored in the database server in response to the
search request and generate a search result based on the
information stored in the database server;
cause the user interface to display the search result; and
store the search result in the user database.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Singh US 2007/0288302 A1
Strickland US 2008/0028435 A1
Kelly US 2008/0172243 A1
Tranter US 2010/0325179 A1
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—6, 8, 14—18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Tranter.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22—24, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tranter in view of Singh.
Claims 11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tranter in view of Strickland.
Claims 12, 13, and 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tranter in view of Kelly.
Dec. 13, 2007
Jan. 31, 2008
July 17, 2008
Dec. 23,2010
3
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Tranter
discloses the limitations of “a related individual being an individual
associated with or related to the reference individual and having at least one
calculated relevance value indicating a strength of a connection between the
reference individual and the related individual,” as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Rejection.
We add the following for emphasis.1
Appellants argue that Tranter does not teach the claimed “related
individual information” (Br. 6 (citing Tranter para. 47)). According to
Appellants, merely disclosing voter attribute “questions” about “information
on who the individual supports” does not constitute “related individual
information” (Br. 6). According to Appellants, their Specification describes
a related individual as one “associated with or related to the reference
individual” and examples of relatedness include related by “geography,
demography, marriage, membership, social network participation, . . . ,
political associations, and/or other factors that may link the individuals
together” (Br. 6 (quoting Spec. para. 20)). Appellants assert that one skilled
in the art would know that a political candidate is not associated with or
1 We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular
rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI2010)
(precedential)); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground
of rejection as waived).
4
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
related to the individual being searched and would not constitute a related
individual in the context of claim 1 (Br. 7). According to Appellants, having
an opinion about a candidate does not equate to being related to the
candidate (Br. 7).
Appellants further argue that “voter attributes” disclosed in Tranter
(para. 37) does not constitute “related individual information” (Br. 7).
Appellants explain that voter attributes include information about voter
demographics and questions with answers as discussed above—not
relationship information (Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants appear
to overlook that the claim recites “a related individual being an individual
associated with or related to the reference individual” (claim 1 (emphasis
added)). In other words, the claim does not require that the related
individual be a related individual but could instead be an individual
associated with the reference individual (see claim 1). See In re Johnston,
435 F.3d. 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[OJptional elements do not narrow
the claim because they can always be omitted.”).
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that a voter (i.e., related
individual) is associated with the client (i.e., reference individual) by
association of political interests (Ans. 17). We determine the scope of the
claims in this case giving claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” and “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) (internal citation
omitted). The Examiner’s finding is consistent with Appellants’
Specification stating that related information may include information “on
5
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
individuals associated with or related to the reference individual by
geography, demography, marriage, membership, social network
participation, political interests and associations, and/or other factors that
may link the individuals together” (Ans. 17 (citing Spec. para. 20)).
Certainly the voter and the political candidate would be associated by
political interests (i.e., either strongly associated if supported or weakly
associated if not a supporter).
We further agree with the Examiner that if the claimed “reference
individual” is interpreted as being the “client,” Tranter discloses the claimed
“related individual information” as “voter attributes” described in Figure 2
and paragraph 37 (Ans. 17). The “voter” is associated with the “client” by
political interests and associations, and/or any other factor that may link
them together (Tranter para. 46 11. 20—21 (a voter score is associated with the
client attribute), para. 50 11. 3—5 (distance score indicates how close a voter’s
view and a client’s view may be on a particular issue)) (Ans. 17).
We further agree with the Examiner’s alternative claim construction,
if the claimed “reference individual” is interpreted to be the “voter,” Tranter
discloses the claimed “related individual information” as “client attributes”
described in Figure 1 and paragraph 352 (Ans. 17). The “client” is
associated with or related to the “voter” by political interest and
associations, and/or any other factor that may link them together (Tranter
para. 46 11. 20-21 (the client attribute is associated with a voter score),
2 The Examiner cites to paragraph 37, however we consider this as an
inadvertent error since the Examiner cites to Figure 1 which has a
corresponding description in paragraphs 35 and 36.
6
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
para. 50 11. 3—5 (distance score indicates how close a voter’s view and a
client’s view may be on a particular issue)).
Appellants further argue, claim 1 specifically requires the related
individual to be “an individual associated with or related to the reference
individual and having at least one calculated relevance value indicating a
strength of a connection between the reference individual and the related
individual” (Br. 7). According to Appellants, neither Tranter’s “voter
attributes” nor its “information on whom a voter supports” could be the
claimed “calculated relevance value indicating a strength of a connection
between the reference individual and the related individual” (Br. 7).
According to Appellants, nothing in Tranter, or any of the cited references,
discloses, teaches, or suggests such a calculated relevance value between
individuals (Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Tranter discloses the claimed “at least one
calculated relevance value indicating a strength of a connection between the
reference individual and a related individual” in at least paragraph 50, lines
3—5 as a “distance score,” which is a quantifiable value that indicates how
close a voter’s view and a client’s view may be on a particular issue
represented by a client attribute (Ans. 18).
Appellants rely on the same arguments raised for claim 1 for claim 14
(Br. 7). Appellants repeat similar arguments with respect to claims 30, 11,
12, 13, and 25-28 (Br. 8-10).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 1 and for the same reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2—30.
7
Appeal 2015-002667
Application 13/026,886
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Tranter discloses the
limitations of “a related individual being an individual associated with or
related to the reference individual and having at least one calculated
relevance value indicating a strength of a connection between the reference
individual and the related individual,” as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—30 is
affirmed.
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
8