Ex Parte Stephens

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

11868674 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/868,674 10/08/2007 Robert Todd Stephens 39072 7590 04/27/2016 AT&T Legal Department - MB Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 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. 070169 (9400-361) 1521 EXAMINER GIRMA, ANTENEH B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER OPIM MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT TODD STEPHENS Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,6741 Technology Center OPIM Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 12, 16, 17, and 20-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is AT&T BLS Intellectual Property, Inc. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 19 are cancelled. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,674 Invention The claims are directed to managing tags added by users engaged in social tagging of content accessible via a communications network. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: identifying critical words associated with content accessed by a user, comprising assigning a weighted value to each of the critical words based on occurrence and location of the critical words within the content, wherein the location comprises content title, content header, and content text, and adjusting the weighted value of each of the critical words based on a position of each of the critical words on a long tail content word inventory curve having a head portion, a body portion, and a long tail portion; and recommending a content-descriptive tag to the user based on the critical words that are accessed by the user, comprising arranging the critical words in a table, wherein the critical words are arranged in descending order within the table according to their respective adjusted weighted values. Rejections Claims 1, 6-8, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cragun et al. US 2008/0065602 Al, Mar. 13, 2 Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,674 2008 in view of Wu, "Tagsense: Marrying Folksonomy and Ontology," Beijing Broadcasting Institute (2002). Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cragun in view of Wu and further in view of Ott et al. US 2007/0078832 Al, Apr. 5, 2007. Claims 21, 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cragun in view of Wu and further in view of Ott et al. and Cheung et al. US 2006/0235824 Al, Oct. 19, 2006. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1 and 12 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because the Examiner cites Cragun for teaching a limitation not recited in claim 1 rather than the claimed limitation. App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner's basis for rejecting claim 1, that Cragun teaches "adjusting the weighting of the critical words based on importance of the word," is in error because claim 1 instead requires "adjusting the weighted value of each of the critical words based on a position of each of 3 Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,674 the critical words on a long tail content word inventory." Id. Appellant argues the importance of a word is not synonymous with the position of a word on a long tail content word inventory curve because such an inventory curve illustrates the popularity of key words, not their importance. App. Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 1-3. The Examiner concludes, however, and we agree, the language of claim 1 only requires that the weighted value of each critical word be adjusted "based on a position of each of the critical words on a long tail content word inventory curve." (Emphasis added.) Ans. 4. The Examiner further concludes, and we agree, claim 1 does not indicate how or why the words are graphed on an inventory curve. Ans. 4. The Examiner also concludes, and we agree, claim 1 does not recite that the words in the curve are positioned based on popularity as Appellant contends. Id. Moreover, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Cragun and Wu. Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Wu teaches the positioning of words in a long tail curve, and also teaches Appellant's narrower interpretation of claim 1, that the word positioning in the curve is based on the popularity of the words. Ans. 4 (citing Wu, Fig. 7; pp. 32, 33). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred finding the combination of Cragun and Wu teaches or suggests "adjusting the weighted value of each of the critical words based on a position of each of the critical words on a long tail content word inventory curve, " as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. (Emphasis added.) Appellant also argues Cragun is silent as to "recommending a content- descriptive tag to the user based on the critical words that are accessed by the user," as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues 4 Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,674 Cragun teaches selecting an advertisement having the largest number of associated target terms that match selected words contained in pages that resulted from keyword searching by the user. Id. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Cragun teaches advertisements presented which comprise "content-descriptive tags" based on aggregated words from the user's profile, i.e., words determined from the user's search history that are matched with target terms associated with advertisements. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Cragun teaches advertisements with the greatest number of target terms that match the user's aggregated words are presented to a user. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Cragun and Wu teaches or suggests "recommending a content-descriptive tag to the user based on the critical words that are accessed by the user, " as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. (Emphasis added.) Appellant has not presented separate substantive and persuasive arguments with respect to claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20. For example, with respect to dependent claims 20-22, Appellant merely repeats the same arguments made with respect to the corresponding independent claim, but makes no attempt to argue the patentability of the additional limitations included by the respective dependent claim. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 5 Appeal2014-006600 Application 11/868,674 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 12, 16, 17, and 20-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6