Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13993977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/993,977 06/13/2013 Ning Zhang P8388US00 2477
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
WALDRON, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NING ZHANG and MEI DONG
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,9771
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 66—86, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
OY. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 9, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 9, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action
mailed January 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed June
13,2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “an approach for providing token-
based (e.g., keyword-based, media token-based, etc.) classification of device
information.” Spec. 12. In particular, Appellants’ system “introduces the
capability to automatically classify and index device information (e.g.,
communication histories, personal information databases, multimedia
databases, application data, etc.) according to tokens that represent things,
ideas, concepts, categories, etc. of potential interest to the user.” Spec. 1 32.
According to Appellants, “the term ‘tokens’ refers to keywords,
representative media items, or a combination thereof that describe, represent,
or otherwise signify the things, ideas, concepts, categories, etc. of potential
interest.” Id.
More specifically, the system 100 analyzes the device
information to create a prioritized array of the tokens (e.g.,
keywords) based on the relative important and/or relevance of
the keywords to the device information associated with a
particular user. In one embodiment, the prioritized array is
created by determining the frequency counts of tokens (e.g.,
determining how many times a keyword or a representative
image appears in the device information). The tokens with the
highest frequency counts are then given the highest priority or
determined to be more closely associated with the user
information.
Spec. 133 (emphasis added).
Illustrative Claim
Claims 66 and 76 are independent. Claim 66 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with a disputed limitation in
italics'.
2
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
66. A method comprising processing and/or facilitating a processing
of at least one result, the at least one result based at least in part on:
a plurality of tokens, the tokens including at least in part one or more
keywords, one or more representative media items, or a combination thereof;
a processing of a communication history, one or more personal
information sources, or a combination thereof associated with a user to
determine one or more frequency counts of respective one or more of the
tokens; and
a generation of recommendation information based, at least in part, on
the one or more frequency counts of the respective one or more tokens,
wherein recommendation of deletion or modification of the respective
one or more tokens is based, at least in part, on an occurrence of the one or
more frequency counts of the respective one or more tokens.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 66—70, 76—80, and 86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Famham et al. (US 2008/0222170 Al;
issued September 11, 2008; “Famham”). Final Act. 3—7.
(2) Claims 71—75 and 81—85 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Famham and Dumais et al. (US
2007/0016553 Al; published Jan. 18, 2007; “Dumais”). Final Act. 7—10.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Famham discloses the disputed limitation: “wherein
recommendation of deletion or modification of the respective one or more
tokens is based, at least in part, on an occurrence of the one or more
frequency counts of the respective one or more tokens,” as recited in
independent claims 66 and 76. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 1—2.
3
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 66—70, 76—80, and 86
With respect to independent claim 66, and similarly, claim 76, the
Examiner finds Famham discloses a method including, inter alia: (1)
“determ[ing] one or more frequency counts of respective one or more of the
tokens” (Final Act. 3^4 (citing Famham || 43, 53)); (2) generating
“recommendation information based, at least in part, on the one or more
frequency counts of the respective one or more tokens” {id. at 4 (citing
Famham 146)); and (3) “wherein recommendation of deletion or
modification of the respective one or more tokens is based, at least in part,
on an occurrence of the one or more frequency counts of the respective one
or more token.” {id. at 4 (citing Famham || 64, 72—73)).
Appellants contend Famham does not disclose: “wherein
recommendation of deletion or modification of the respective one or more
tokens is based, at least in part, on an occurrence of the one or more
frequency counts of the respective one or more token,” as recited in claims
66 and 76. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 1—2. According to Appellants, the
term “frequency counts of tokens” as defined by Appellants’ Specification
“relates to how many times a keyword or a representative image appears in
the device information.” App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 133). Based on that
interpretation, Appellants argue the cited portions of Famham only teach a
(i) “tracking engine [that] can track changes and dependencies between
events initiated by a user, and can undo or modify these events based on
the user’s actions” and (ii) “a detailed history editing display [that] allows a
user to retroactively format an entire document,” but do not disclose
Appellants’ claimed “recommendation of deletion or modification of the
4
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
respective one or more tokens is based, at least in part, on an occurrence of
the one or more frequency counts of the respective one or more token,”
as recited in claims 66 and 76. App Br. 12—13.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—6. As such,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id.
For additional emphasis, we note claim terms are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As used in
Appellants’ Specification, the term “tokens” is broadly defined as
“keywords, representative media items, or a combination thereof that
describe, represent, or otherwise signify the things, ideas, concepts,
categories, etc. of potential interest.” Spec. 132. However, as recognized by
the Examiner, the term “frequency counts of tokens” is not explicitly defined
by Appellants’ Specification, but is described with a non-limiting example:
In one embodiment, the prioritized array is created by
determining the frequency counts of tokens (e.g., determining
how many times a keyword or a representative image appears in
the device information). The tokens with the highest frequency
counts are then given the highest priority or determined to be
more closely associated with the user information.
Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 133) (emphasis added).
Alternatively, Appellants’ Specification also describes that:
“In [another] one embodiment, the frequency counts may be
determined with respect to certain contexts and/or conditions.
For example, the system 100 may determine the tokens and their
respective frequency counts in association with specific contacts
associated with the user. In this way, each of the user’s contacts
5
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
may be associated with a different priority of the tokens
depending on their interaction history with the user. These
tokens can, for instance, describe common interests between the
user and the contact, a relationship between the user and the
contact (e.g., family, coworker, etc.), a relationship state between
the user and the contact (e.g., close friend, a mere acquaintance,
etc.), one or more states of mind with respect to the contact (e.g.,
a mood with respect to contact such as ‘happy with the contact’,
‘mad at the contact’, etc.), or a combination thereof. In another
embodiment, the user may a ‘My card’ listing (e.g., the user's
own contact card) independent of a specific contact, so that the
user can browse all information related to the tokens
conveniently.”
Spec. 134.
Based on Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner has interpreted (i)
the term “tokens” as encompassing various “objects” including, for example,
applications, documents, files, communications, or photos as described by
Famham (Final Act. 4 (citing Famham || 43, 53, 175)), and (ii) the term
“frequency counts of tokens” as encompassing “a numerical count of how
many times a token appears” (Ans. 4) or Famham’s “frequency of user
interactions” (Ans. 5, citing Famham 143, 53, TABFE 1C). We find the
Examiner’s interpretations are reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification.
The Examiner then finds, and we agree, Famham discloses
Appellants’ claimed “determ[ing] one or more frequency counts of
respective one or more of the tokens” in the form of user interactions with an
object (e.g., a photo) and the relative importance of such an object, including
the “frequency of user interactions” and “count of unique
activations/sessions.” Ans. 5—6 (citing Famham || 43, 53, TABFE 1C).
Similarly, the Examiner finds, and we also agree, Famham discloses
6
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
Appellants’ claimed “recommendation of deletion or modification of the
respective one or more tokens is based, at least in part, on an occurrence of
the one or more frequency counts of the respective one or more token” in the
form of Famham’s tracking changes and deletions to an object as well the
system hypothesis (e.g., recommendation) “that the user would want to
apply these tracked changes/deletes to other objects” and “‘an occurrence’ of
a frequency count. . . the basis for the recommendation.” Ans. 6 (citing
Famham || 64, 72—73).
In the Reply, Appellants argue (i) Famham’s relative “importance
does [not] relate to the frequency of interaction, (ii) “user interaction with a
photo is not in itself a token,” (iii) “count of activations/sessions” does not
constitute Appellants’ claimed “frequency counts of tokens,” and (vi)
“TABLE IC appears to disclose determining how many times a single
alleged token is interacted with, not how many times it occurs.” Reply Br.
1—2. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, the term
“tokens” can be broadly interpreted to encompass photos as described by
Famham. Spec. 132. Similarly, Famham’s relative “importance” relates to
the “frequency of user interactions” and “count of unique
activations/sessions.” Ans. 5—6 (citing Famham || 43, 53, TABLE 1C).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Appellants’ claims 66 and 76 are
broadly worded and do not recite the term “frequency counts of tokens” or
“‘frequency counts’ of an ‘occurrence’ of tokens.” Instead, Appellants’
claims 66 and 76 recite “one or more frequency counts of respective one or
more [] tokens” and such limitations can be broadly interpreted as —a single
count of a single token— as disclosed by Famham. See Famham || 43, 53,
TABLE 1C.
7
Appeal 2017-001601
Application 13/993,977
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 66 and 76 and their respective dependent claims 67—70,
77—80, and 86 as well as the rejection of claims 71—75 and 81—85, which
Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 66—86 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 66—86
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8