Ex Parte SathishDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201712897142 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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. 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 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has since been withdrawn.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation