Ex Parte Sathish

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

12897142 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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.
12/897,142 10/04/2010 Sailesh Kumar Sathish 042933/395899 1301
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
FLEISCHER, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAILESH KUMAR SATHISH
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,1421
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 8—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and rejecting
claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Appeal
Br. 6—7. In addition, the Examiner objected to claims 4, 11, and 18. Final
Action 13. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has since been withdrawn.
Answer 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at
least one memory including computer program code, the at least
one memory and the computer program code configured to,
with the processor, cause the apparatus to:
provide for drafting a content channel comprising one or
more content tags;
compare the content channel with a plurality of existing
content channels based at least in part on the content tags to
determine a similarity factor; and
determine whether or not to allow creation of the content
channel based at least in part on the similarity factor.
REJECTION
Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rapaport et al. (US 2010/0205541 Al, pub.
Aug. 12, 2010) (“Rapaport”) and Ertugrul et al. (US 2009/0204706 Al, pub.
Aug. 13, 2009) (“Ertugrul”).2
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner’s findings stated in the Final
Office Action at pages 2—5, 7—11, and 12—13 and the Answer at pages 2—9
and 10, except as stated otherwise in the Analysis below. Additional
findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 8—
20. Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 The mistaken inclusion of claim 11 in the description of the rejection (Final
Action 7; Answer 2) is regarded as inadvertent.
2
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest various claim limitations.
See Appeal Br. 10-20. As explained below, the Appellant’s arguments, with
respect to these claim limitations, are not persuasive of error. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
1. “provide for drafting a content cbanner
The Appellant contends that Rapaport does not teach or suggest
“provide for drafting a content channel” in either Rapaport’s disclosure of
inviting users to join topical chat rooms or its disclosure of
changing/selecting the topic of a chat room. Appeal Br. 10—11; see also
Reply Br. 3^4. Yet, the Appellant does not offer any construction of the
claim language at issue, or otherwise explain the basis for this position.
The Examiner, on the other hand, construes “drafting a content
channel” as the creation of an entity associated with new content that
segregated from other content, which the Examiner finds to be satisfied by
Rapaport’s disclosure of creating connections among users through topical
chat rooms. Answer 3^4 (citing Rapaport || 13, 22, 194).
The Appellant does not persuade us of error in the rejection. The
Specification reveals an expansive understanding of the operative claim
language. The Specification states that “[a] content channel, as used herein,
may refer to a collection of content which is selected based on specified
criteria” (Spec. 120) and that “[providing for drafting a content channel, as
used herein, refers to the process which occurs when building a content
channel” (id. 128). The Examiner’s construction of “drafting a content
channel” aligns with the Specification and is met by the identified portions
of Rapaport. Furthermore, although the Appellant disputes the Examiner’s
3
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
finding, the Appellant presents no argument as to any deficiency in
Rapaport. Appeal Br. 10—13; Reply Br. 3^4. Accordingly, the Appellant’s
assertions do not rise to the level of a substantive argument for alleged error.
2. “content channel comprising one or more content tags”
The Appellant contends that Rapaport’s disclosure of meta-tags does
not teach the claimed “content channel comprising one or more content
tags,” because Rapaport merely discloses using meta-tags in determining a
user’s potential topic/content focus, so as to match users with each other.
See Reply Br. 4.
However, the Examiner points out, to the contrary, that Rapaport
discloses meta-tags as an automated means for identifying the content to
which users are directing their attention, thus satisfying the identified claim
limitation. Answer 4—5 (citing Rapaport 122, Fig. 2A (element 216f)).
Accordingly, the Appellant does not argue persuasively that Rapaport
lacks the claimed “content channel comprising one or more content tags.”
3. “compare the content channel with a plurality of existing
content channels based at least in part on the content tags
to determine a similarity factor”
The Appellant argues that the identified references do not teach or
suggest “compar[ing] the content channel with a plurality of existing content
channels based at least in part on the content tags to determine a similarity
factor.” See Appeal Br. 13—17, 19; Reply Br. 4—7. In particular, the
Appellant argues that the Examiner inappropriately relies upon Ertugrul’s
disclosure of matching a user to a channel (for the purpose of determining
whether the user would receive a corresponding advertisement), based upon
a comparison of search terms or keywords having various assigned values.
See Reply Br. 5—7 (citing Ertugrul 26, 108, 116—18, 124, 126, 127, 140,
4
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
143, 146, Figs. 14, 15). The Appellant argues that Ertugrul does not
compare tags with each other (where tags correspond to respective content
channels), as the claim requires. Id.
However, the Examiner explains that Ertugrul is relied upon only for
the feature of comparing tags, in regard to a “similarity factor,” whereas
Rapaport is relied upon for a teaching of “content channels” having “tags”
associated therewith. Final Action 8—9; Answer 4—7.
Thus, the Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, as it amounts to
attacking the Ertugrul reference individually, where the rejection involves
combining the teachings of Ertugrul and Rapaport. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”) (citation omitted).
4. “determine whether or not to allow creation of the content
channel based at least in part on the similarity factor”
As to the recited “determining] whether or not to allow creation of
the content channel based at least in part on the similarity factor,” the
Examiner’s position is that the subject matter is obvious, in view of
Ertugrul’s creation of channels based on triggers (which in turn are based on
contextual matching of web activity) combined with Rapaport’s deletion or
merging of chat rooms and the reference’s use of tags to indicate the content
thereof. Final Action 8—9; Answer 6—7.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner is in error, because (as
discussed above, regarding the “provide for drafting a content channel”
limitation) the Appellant rejects the Examiner’s mapping of the claimed
“content channel” to one of Rapaport’s chat rooms. Appeal Br. 17.
5
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
Moreover, the Appellant contends that Rapaport does not compare chat
rooms with each other and, therefore, cannot take any action (such as the
claimed “determine whether or not to allow creation of the content channel”)
based upon such a comparison. Id. at 17—18.
Ertugrul, the Appellant argues, discloses triggers for determining
whether to provide existing advertising to a user, but not whether to allow
creation of a new “content channel.” Appeal Br. 19—20. Further, Ertugrul’s
triggers are created by assigning values to contextual and/or behavioral
information that may be present in a webpage that the user is viewing, rather
than comparisons of keywords or tags. Reply Br. 7.
The Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it regards each of
Rapaport and Ertugrul separately, but never addresses the combination of
their teachings articulated by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
at 426.
Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 16
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 are argued as a group. Appeal Br.
21—22. Claim 2 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 2 recites:
2. The apparatus of Claim 1, further configured to:
allow creation of the content channel in an instance in
which the similarity factor is less than a threshold correlation
value; and
disallow creation of the content channel in an instance in
which the similarity factor exceeds the threshold correlation
value.
The Examiner relies upon Rapaport (Final Action 9—10 (citing
Rapaport || 204, 444); Answer 8 (citing Rapaport || 29, 194)) and Ertugrul
6
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
(Answer 8 (citing Ertugrul 1 119)) for the claimed feature of “allowing]” or
“disallowing]” “creation of the content channel” based upon the “similarity
factor” being “less than” or “exceeding]” the “threshold correlation value.”
The Appellant disputes these findings, alleging that the references
involve technical contexts that are “not equivalent to” (Appeal Br. 21—22) or
have “no relation to” (Reply Br. 8) the claimed subject matter.
Yet, the Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error, because
the Appellant provides no explanation for the position expressed and,
therefore, no substantive argument for alleged error.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained.
Dependent Claims 3,10, and 17
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 22.
Claim 3 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 3 recites:
3. The apparatus of Claim 2, further configured to
provide for selection of a public channel status configured to
allow sharing of the content channel or a private channel status
configured to disallow sharing of the content channel.
The Examiner relies upon paragraphs 128, 136, and 137 of Ertugrul
for the claimed “public channel status” and “private channel status” features.
Final Action 10—11; Answer 8—9.
Although the Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding, the
Appellant (Appeal Br. 22 (citing Ertugrul ^fl[ 131—138)) does not articulate a
reason why Ertugrul allegedly fails to satisfy the claimed features.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained.
7
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
Dependent Claims 5,12, and 19
Claim 5, which is representative of these claims, recites:
5. The apparatus of Claim 2, further configured to
suggest subscription to one of the existing content channels in
the instance in which the similarity factor exceeds the threshold
correlation value.
The Examiner’s position is that Rapaport’s disclosures of invitations
to join chat rooms teach the subject matter of claim 5. See Final Action
11—12 (citing Rapaport || 166—167, Fig. ID); see also Answer 9—10 (citing
Rapaport 126).
Yet, as the Appellant recognizes, the interplay of claim 5 with claim 2
(from which claim 5 depends directly) and claim 1 (from which claim 2
depends) is such that claim 5 requires “suggesting] subscription to one of
the existing content channels” (i.e., as an alternative), where the “similarity
factor exceeds the threshold correlation value” (for claim 1 ’s “content
channel” and “plurality of existing content channels”), such that (per claim
2) the “creation of the content channel” is “disallow[ed].” See Reply Br. 9.
The Appellant points out that, while Rapaport teaches recommending
content that corresponds to a topic of interest to the user, Rapaport does not
recommend doing so “where the creation of the content channel has been
disallowed . . ., for example, because the new content channel is too similar
to existing content channels.” Id. We agree with the Appellant.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 and (for similar reasons) claims
12 and 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is not sustained.
8
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
Dependent Claims 6,13, and 20
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 are argued as a group. Appeal
Br. 23—24. Claim 6 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 6 recites: “The apparatus of Claim 1, further configured to
provide for selection of a context token specifying an instance in which the
content channel is active.”
The Examiner finds that Rapaporf s disclosure of indicia of chat room
activity teaches the features of claim 6. Final Action 12 (citing Rapaport
88, 390); Answer 10 (citing Rapaport 1 89).
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding is erroneous,
because the cited portions of Rapaport do not show “certain locations, times
of day, countries, languages, activities, etc.” of chat room activities. Appeal
Br. 24 (citing Spec. 129); Reply Br. 9.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it relies upon
features not set forth in the claim language, but appearing only in the
Specification.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained.
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 recites: “The method of Claim 13, further comprising
suggesting the content channel for subscription in an instance in which the
content channel is active.”
According to the Examiner, paragraphs 88, 89, and 390 of Rapaport
(also cited in regard to claim 6) teach the features of claim 14. Final Action
12—13; Answer 10.
9
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
In one aspect, the Appellant relies upon the argument presented for
claim 6 (Appeal Br. 24), which (as discussed, above) is unpersuasive.
The Appellant also contends (Appeal Br. 24) that the disclosure of
Rapaport’s paragraph 390 fails to teach the claimed subject matter, but
offers no explanation for this view. In addition, although the Appellant
purports to dispute the Examiner’s finding that Rapaporf s paragraph 89
teaches the features of claim 14, the Appellant acknowledges the contrary —
i.e., that Rapaport discloses an “invitations-indicating radar scope which
indicates ongoing chat rooms that are related to the topic the user appears to
be thinking about.” Reply Br. 9.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
sustained.
Dependent Claim 7
With regard to claim 7, the Appellant relies upon the arguments
presented with regard to independent claim 1 (from which claim 7 depends).
See Appeal Br. 20. No further argument is presented. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed above, regarding claim 1, the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is also sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 6—10,
13—17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 12, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal 2014-008101
Application 12/897,142
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11