Ex Parte Shah et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

13664846 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/664,846 10/31/2012 Samir M. Shah
45839 7590 03/25/2019
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
900006-US-NP(3080.044US 1) 3973
EXAMINER
ALMAN!, MOHSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 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):
USPTO@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMIR M. SHAH and ROSHAN RAJESH SUMBAL Y
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Linkedin, Corp. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "techniques for batch-
processing information related to various social network interactions for the
purpose of generating complex update messages for presentation in a
personalized news feed or activity stream." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 10,
which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A memory device, the memory device communicatively
coupled to a processor and comprising instructions which, when
performed on the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from an electronic storage, data related to a social
network;
generate, using a batch processor, a plurality of updates
based, at least in part, on the data, a first one of the plurality of
updates generated based on a first processing job and a second
one of the plurality of updates generated based on a second
processing job different than the first processingjob, the plurality
of updates individually describing ones of a plurality of users of
the social network;
store the plurality of updates in an update database;
receive, at least in part from the update database, the
plurality of updates;
process, using the batch processor, at least two of the
plurality of updates to generate a consolidated update indicative
of data obtained from each of the at least two of the plurality of
updates;
transmit the consolidated update to the update database;
and
display the consolidated update and one of the plurality of
updates not used to generate the consolidated update on an
update stream of the social network corresponding to at least one
of the plurality of users.
2
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
10. A memory device, the memory device communicatively
coupled to a processor and comprising instructions which, when
performed on the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from an electronic storage, data related to
interactions with a social network;
generate, using a batch processor, a plurality of updates
based, at least in part, on the data, a first one of the plurality of
updates generated based on a first processing job and a second
one of the plurality of updates generated based on a second
processing job different than the first processingjob, the plurality
of updates individually describing ones of a plurality of users of
the social network;
store the plurality of updates in an update database;
receive, from the update database, the plurality of
interactions with a social network;
process, using a batch processor, at least two of the
plurality of interactions to generate a consolidated update
indicative of interactions with at least two of a plurality of
updates of the social network;
cause the display of the consolidated update and one of the
plurality of updates not used to generate the consolidated update
on an update stream of the social network.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Dunn et al. US 2012/0102114 Al Apr. 26, 2012
(hereinafter "Dunn")
Hyatt et al. US 2012/0150888 Al June 14, 2012
(hereinafter "Hyatt")
Yan et al. US 2013/0073546 Al Mar. 21, 2013
(hereinafter "Yan")
3
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
Rejection
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn. 2 Non-Final
Act. 2-24.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn fails to
teach or suggest "process, using the batch processor, at least two of the
plurality of updates to generate a consolidated update indicative of data
obtained from each of the at least two of the plurality of updates," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue "[n]one of the survey responses
described in Dunn appear to meet any aspect of what defines an update as
recited in claim 1" and, therefore, "the result reports disclosed in Dunn are
not and cannot be a 'consolidated update' because the survey results do not
meet the requirements for what constitutes an 'update."' App. Br. 15.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds Hyatt
teaches:
[T]he ERM may access other resources such as social and
professional network sites-Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, Zite,
Travel Plans, etc. From these resources, as well as from articles,
etc., the ERM may learn about the user's client contacts and may
update user/network contact records associated with such
individuals and associated companies,
2 Because Appellants filed the application prior to March 16, 2013, the
version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 we apply here is the one preceding the changes
made by the America Invents Act. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,293, § 3(n) (2011).
4
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
and, therefore, that Hyatt teaches "receiv[ing], from an electronic storage,
data related to a social network" and "generat[ing], using a batch processor,
a plurality of updates based, at least in part, on the data." Non-Final Act. 3
( citing Hyatt ,r,r 18, 111) ( emphasis omitted). As such, the Examiner relies
upon Hyatt's information learned about the user's client contacts for
teaching the claimed data related to a social network and Hyatt's updated
user/network contact records for teaching the claimed "plurality of updates."
See Non Final Act. 3.
In response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner initially finds Hyatt teaches or suggests "process[ing] ... at least
two of the plurality of updates to generate a consolidated update indicative
of data obtained from each of the at least two of the plurality of updates."
Ans. 6-8 (citing Hyatt ,r,r 11, 91, 94, 111). In particular, the Examiner finds:
[T]he updates provided by Hyatt is an indication of a
consolidated updates because "if the ERM detects that a person
identified as a client of a user ( existing update) has changed
positions within a company ( another update) or changed firms
( another update) then the ERM may present the user with the
potentially relevant event ( consolidated update) and the user may
then selectively determine to update the client contact to reflect
the job change".)
Ans. 8. However, based on the Examiner's findings discussed above, the
Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that Hyatt teaches or suggests
processing at least two updates to a client contact (e.g., updates) to generate
the potentially relevant event (e.g., a consolidated update), as required by
claim 1. Instead, the Examiner's findings merely show that Hyatt teaches
generating a consolidated update based upon Hyatt's learned information
( e.g., data related to a social network). See Ans. 6-8.
5
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
Additionally, the Examiner finds multiple sections of Dunn teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 8-11 ( citing Dunn ,r,r 59, 3 69, 3 71,
373, 387,388,409,425,427,466,470, 571, 573, 576). However, in each
case, the Examiner's findings fail to show that the "consolidated update"
relied upon by the Examiner is generated by processing at least two of a
plurality of "updates" that are generated based on data related to a social
network, as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1;
independent claim 20, which recites corresponding limitations; and claims
2-9 and 21-28 which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 and 20.
Claim 10
In contrast to claim 1, claim 10 requires processing at least two of the
plurality of interactions, rather than at least two of the plurality of updates
generated based on data related to interactions with a social network. App.
Br. 25 (Claims Appendix). As such, Appellants' arguments discussed above
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 10 and, therefore, are
unpersuasive of error.
Appellants state in the Appeal Brief that the arguments made with
respect to claim 1 apply to claim 10. App. Br. 18. Accordingly, we address
Appellants' remaining arguments with respect to claim 10 below.
Appellants contend the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn fails to
teach or suggest:
generate, using a batch processor, a plurality of updates
based, at least in part, on the data, a first one of the plurality of
updates generated based on a first processing job and a second
one of the plurality of updates generated based on a second
6
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
processing job different than the first processingjob, the plurality
of updates individually describing ones of a plurality of users of
the social network;
as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue Hyatt, upon which the
Examiner relies, does not teach generating a first update based on a first
processing job and a second update based on a second, different processing
job, as required by claim 1. Id. In particular, Appellants argue:
[T]he Examiner effectively concedes that Hyatt does not
explicitly disclose a first processing job and a second processing
job different than the first processing job for generating the
plurality of updates but asserts that paragraph [0018]
"periodically indicates a first processing job in a first time period
would be different from a second processing job in a second time
period". It is respectfully submitted that such is not inherent, as
a single processing job may be repeated indefinitely for different
inputs without being a different processing job, and as a result
the Examiner does not meet the burden to show that Hyatt
discloses what the Examiner asserts it does.
App. Br. 14.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not rely on inherency. Instead, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hyatt's teaching regarding periodically
updating user profile data teaches or suggests a first processing job and a
second, different processing job because "a first processing job in a first time
period would be different from a second processing job in a second time
period." Ans. 12 (citing Hyatt ,r 18).
Appellants contend the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn fails to
teach or suggest "display the consolidated update and one of the plurality of
updates not used to generate the consolidated update on an update stream of
7
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
the social network corresponding to at least one of the plurality of users," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-16.
According to Appellants, paragraph 4 7 of Dunn provides a variety of
records that may be updated and that paragraph 571 of Dunn teaches that
votes are collected on the basis of a response request. App. Br. 16.
Appellants argue "[a] response request is not described in paragraph [0047]
or, it appears, anywhere else in Dunn" and "[a]s such, there is no basis for
saying that the response request of paragraph [0571] is the same as a
'record' that may be updated." App. Br. 16.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner
finds Dunn teaches generating reports that include a table that lists responses
received from users ( e.g., interactions), provides graphs and charts depicting
the responses, or any other information related to the received responses.
Ans. 14 ( citing Dunn ,r 645). Dunn teaches that "the system may
automatically tally the recipients' votes and generate an information update
indicating the majority vote" (e.g., a consolidated update) and that "the
system may be configured for complex data analysis such as determining
trends, suggesting a conclusion from the responses and other data
manipulation." Dunn ,r 576. Because Dunn teaches that the report lists
responses received and that the report may include any other information
related to the received responses ( e.g., an information update indicating the
majority vote, determined trends), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14)
that Dunn teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Appellants also contend the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn is
improper. App. Br. 16-18. Appellants argue:
8
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Dunn to
remedy the conceded deficiencies of Hyatt and Yan. Because
Dunn simply stands for the collection of votes and the
summarized display of voting results, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have no basis for combining Dunn with the
"relationship management and intelligent agent" of Hyatt and
"indexing semantic user profiles for targeted advertising" of Yan
to create the subject matter of claim 1.
App. Br. 16. Appellants further argue "the collection of votes and the
display of voting data in Dunn bear no relationship to the social network
data, plurality of updates, and consolidated updates that are recited with
specificity in claim 1, to say nothing of the disclosures of Hyatt and Yan."
App. Br. 16 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the Examiner's proffered
motivation for the combination is a conclusory statement and, therefore,
improper. App. Br. 17.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F .3d 977,
987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner can
satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int 'l v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
Regarding the combination of Hyatt and Yan, the Examiner finds:
[I]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of the cited
references and use a batch processor explicitly for updating data
in a database because doing so would enable more timely and/or
efficient online processing of data.
9
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds it would be obvious to combine the
teachings of Dunn with the teachings of Hyatt and Yan to "present a
consolidated update as well as the update not used for consolidated update to
multiple users explicitly because doing so would allow for tracking changes
in a social network data and informing users by news feed." Non-Final
Act. 6.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
combine the teachings of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn. See Ans. 15-18. Applying
the teachings of Yan and Dunn to the teachings of Hyatt would have
predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-
an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id. at 420,421. Appellants do not present evidence that the
resulting arrangement was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10; and claims 11-13 and 15-19, which depend from claim
10 and are not separately argued with particularity.
10
Appeal2018-003938
Application 13/664,846
Claim 14
Appellants contend the combination of Hyatt, Yan, and Dunn fails to
teach or suggest "wherein the batch processor is configured to concurrently
generate a plurality of consolidated updates, each of the plurality of
consolidated updates based on at least two of the plurality of updates," as
recited in claim 14. Claim 14 is similar to claim 1 in that it requires the
plurality of consolidated updates to be generated based on at least two of the
plurality of updates. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 14 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 14, and 20-28.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-13 and 15-19.
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
11