Ex Parte Tseng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12976743 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/976,743 12/22/2010
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
06/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erick Tseng
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.
26295-17321 8023
EXAMINER
LO,ANNJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
ptoc@fenwick.com
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERICK TSENG and DAVID BRAGINSKY
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-8 and 18-24. No other claims are
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is generally directed to providing a context search in
which a list of search results is ranked according to a relevance score. See
Abstract.
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below, with the disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
maintaining social information for a social networking
system user;
receiving a search query from a user device associated
with the user;
receiving a location of the user device;
determining a list of search results based on the search
query, each search result comprising a search value;
associating each search result with a third-party content
object;
calculating a relevance score for each result by matching
the user location, social information, and search value to the
third-party content object associated with the search result,
where the relevance score is based at least in part on a
connection value for the third-party content object associated
with the search result, the connection value based on one or more
connections of the user who are associated with the third-party
content object;
ranking the listing of search results by the relevance scores
of the third-party content objects associated with the search
results; and
providing the ranked list of search results to a notification
controller.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein maintaining the social
information comprises:
2
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743
maintaining affinity information for the user according to
one or more categories; and
maintaining a plurality of connections between the user
and other users of the social networking system.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ramer (US 2008/0214148 Al; Sept. 4,
2008). Final Act. 3---6.
ISSUES
The issues in this appeal are:
(i) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ramer discloses "where
the relevance score is based at least in part on a connection value for the
third-party content object associated with the search result, the connection
value based on one or more connections of the user \x1ho are associated \x1ith
the third-party content object," as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 18;
and
(ii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ramer discloses
"maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other users of
the social networking system," as recited in dependent claims 2 and 19.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, and 18
"where the relevance score is based at least in part on a connection
value ... , the connection value based on one or more connections of the
user who are associated with the third-party content object"
3
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743
Appellants argue that Ramer fails to disclose determining a relevance
score based at least in part on a connection value that is based on one or
more connections of the user. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-6. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Ramer discloses determining relevant content for a
user based on user characteristics specific to each individual user in
isolation, and not based on connections (e.g., friends) of the user. App. Br.
8-10. Appellants also argue that Ramer does not disclose using associations
between those connections of the user and third-party content objects in
determining relevance. App. Br. 8-10.
The Examiner responds that Ramer discloses that relevancy can be
based on an authoritative user's association with a third party content object,
and that such an authoritative user is a connection of the user. Ans. 4---6. 2
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Claims 1, 8, and 18
require that the relevance score of a third-party content object be based in
part on "one or more connections of the user who are associated with the
third-party content object." This limitation merely requires that relevance be
based in part on a connection of a user who is associated with a third-party
content object. As the Examiner found, Ramer discloses determining
relevance based on authoritative user's association with a content object.
Ramer i-fi-1883-84, 933, 938, and 982-83. Ramer also discloses that such an
authoritative user can be within a user's private network or social network,
and thus is a connection of the user. Ramer i-fi-1 982, 984. The claim
2 As Appellants observed in their Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3 n.1 ), the
Examiner's paragraph number cites accompanying the cited passages of
Ramer on pages 2-7 of the Answer are incorrect. We agree with Appellants
and included corrected citations in this Decision.
4
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743
limitation does not specify a type of "connection" that is required, and the
specification does not limit or define the term "connection." See, e.g., Spec,
i-fi-1 21, 31, and 89. Thus, an authoritative user who is within the same private
network of a user-as disclosed in Ramer-is a "connection of the user" as
claimed. We thus sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 18, and dependent claims 3-7 and 20-24 which
are not separately argued.
Dependent claims 2 and 19
"maintaining a plurality of connections between the user and other
users of the social networking system "
Appellants also argue that Ramer does not disclose maintaining a
plurality of connections between the user and other users of the social
networking system, as recited in dependent claims 2 and 19. App. Br. 10-
11. The Examiner finds that Ramer discloses that users can share
information with other users who share a connection in a social network
with the user. Ans. 7 (citing Ramer i-fi-1943, 914, 935, 945, and 982).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. As the Examiner
found, Ramer discloses maintaining connections between users of a social
networking system. See, e.g., Ramer i-fi-1914, 943, 945, 982, and 984--86.
Appellants have failed to traverse the specific factual findings made by the
Examiner. See Ans. 6-8; Reply Br. 2---6. On this record, we find Appellants
have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence
persuasive of Examiner error regarding claims 2 and 19. For this reason and
the reasons explained above with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, we
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 19.
5
Appeal2014-005996
Application 12/976,743
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 18-24.
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
6