Ex Parte Zhong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13015362 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/015,362 01/27/2011 Qian Zhong 2043.896US1 2481
49845 7590 12/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
ZUKANOVICH, BRANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
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 QIAN ZHONG, RAMAKRISHNAN NATARAJAN,
PARASHURAM KULKARNI,
ABDELHALIM ABBAS, and ZHIGANG HUA
Appeal 2015-0009271
Application 13/015,3622
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final rejection of claims 1—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
July 31, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 20, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 11,
2014) and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 22, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, eBay Inc., is the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 2).
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to “a method and system for
identifying users using reputational data.” (Spec. 11).
Claims 1,11, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor comprising:
a processor-implemented transaction data
collector module configured to collect transaction data of
users of a network-based community;
a processor-implemented weight module
configured to compute a weight corresponding to a
transaction relationship between two users, the weight
based on transactions between the two users;
a processor-implemented metric module
configured to compute a first metric including a hub
value of a user, and a second metric including an
authority value for the user, the first metric mutually
dependent on the second metric, the hub value of the user
based on corresponding authority values of other users
whom the user has purchased from, the authority value of
the user based on the corresponding hub values of other
users which the user has sold to; and
a processor-implemented reputation module
configured to determine a reputation for the user based
on at least one of the corresponding weight of transaction
relationships with other users, the first metric, and the
second metric, the reputation for the user as a buyer
being a function of at least the first metric of the user, the
reputation for the user as a seller being a function of at
least the second metric of the user.
(Appeal Br. 27, Claims App.)
2
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to an abstract idea.3
II. Claims 1—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
III. Claims 1—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I (Patentable Subject Matter)
Claims 1—30
The Examiner finds that claims 1—10 are to a machine; claims 11—20
are directed to a process; and claims 21—30 are directed to an article of
manufacture (Ans. 7). Nevertheless, the Examiner determines that claims 1—
30 are additionally directed to the abstract idea of determining a reputation
of buyers and sellers (id.). The Examiner identifies the individual recitations
as follows: collecting transaction data; computing a weight corresponding to
a transaction relationship between two users; computing a first and second
metric; and determining by a processor a reputation for a user based on the
3 This rejection was set forth in the Answer pursuant for the procedures for
a new ground of rejection in an Answer.
3
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
corresponding weight of the transaction, the first metric, and the second
metric (id.). The Examiner further determines that the recitations of claims
1—30, when taken alone, each execute (a function) in a routine and
conventional manner, and when taken in combination, achieve coordinated
execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood,
routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (id. at
7-8).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the claims at issue
are not directed to an abstract idea, nor a mathematical formula, nor a
fundamental economic practice (see Reply Br. 3—8). Appellants, relying on
the claim language itself, argue that claim 1 is directed to a module that
is configured to compute a first metric including a hub value of
a user [in a network-based community], and a second metric
including an authority value for the user, the first metric
mutually dependent on the second metric, the hub value of the
user based on corresponding authority values of other users
whom the user has purchased from, the authority value of the
user based on the corresponding hub values of other users
which the user has sold to
(Reply Br. 5). Appellants assert that this module “performs a recursive
process of calculating hub and authority values for a user” (id.). Appellants
further point to the Specification, which states, inter alia, that “[ujnlike the
traditional ranking system, the current system is derived from a dynamic
user transaction graph, which captures the dynamics of the interactions
between sellers and buyers” (Spec 121). In sum, Appellants do not contest
the Examiner’s characterization of “reputation” as an abstract idea other than
to point to mathematical relationships. Thus, Appellants essentially agree
that a mathematical operation is being performed. We conclude that
4
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
Appellants reliance on a mathematical operation, is non-patentable subject
matter under A lice. See Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Inti, 134 S.Ct.
2347, 2355 (2014). (discussing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 59A-595
(1978)).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner “misclassifies” and
“oversimplified” the claims (in looking at the individual recitations) (Reply
Br. 5—8). Appellants assert that, even if the claims contain an abstract idea,
they do not simply “apply it,” nor solve a problem with “conventional
industry practice,” nor pre-empt scientific work (Reply Br. 9—11). However,
we conclude that the claims are directed to a mathematical operation that
remains within the realm of the abstract, even considering the individual
recitations. Nor have Appellants persuasively demonstrated a technological
innovation other than a proposed mathematical operation. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 101 of claims 1—30.
Rejection II (Written Description)
Claims 1—30
The Examiner determines that a review of the disclosure does not
reveal the manner in which the reputation value is ultimately determined (i.e.
calculated), as recited in claim 1, i.e., “a reputation for the user based on at
least one of the corresponding weight of transaction relationships with other
users, the first metric, and the second metric, the reputation for the user as a
buyer being a function of at least the first metric of the user, the reputation
for the user as a seller being a function of at least the second metric of the
user” (Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner emphasizes that this is not an
5
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
enablement rejection but rather goes to the written description requirement
(id.). The Examiner rejects the remaining claims for similar reasons.
Appellants rely on a “strong presumption” in favor of finding written
description support and also point to paragraph 49 of the Specification,
which recites: “Back to FIG. 2B, the reputation module 214 computes a
reputation value for a user based on at least one of the corresponding weight
of transaction relationships with other users, the hub value, and the authority
value” (Appeal Br. 16 (citing MPEP 2163(I)(A); Spec. 149)). Appellants
also argue that “[t]he specific algorithm used to determine the reputation is
not a critical essential or critical feature of the invention” and that
“Appellants do not believe that it is necessary for such specificity to be
provided” (Appeal Br. 16—17). Appellants further state that the
Specification describes that the first metric may be used alone and that the
second metric may be used alone, and therefore the Specification discloses
two algorithms (id. at 17). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that the Specification describes that one of the values may be used
alone. To the extent that Appellants are relying on paragraph 49 of the
Specification, the Specification describes that the reputation value may be
“based on” at least one value, but does not explain what the algorithm is for
“bas[ing]” the reputation value on such a value.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has erred in conducting the
written description analysis and that the Examiner has erred in claim
construction because a proper understanding of the claim would show the
applicant to have been in possession of the invention (Appeal Br. 20—21).
Appellants then point to paragraphs 37-49 and Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C for
what Appellants believe to describe “specific algorithms” as to how a first
6
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
metric and a second metric can be computed, including a “Hyperlink-
Induced Topic Search (HITS) algorithm” (Appeal Br. 21—25). However,
although the Specification discloses that HITS algorithm is used to compute
hub and authority values (see Spec, paragraph 43), and the Specification
discloses that an edge weight can represent the number or amount of total
transactions (id.), the Specification does not describe how to compute a
reputation “based thereon.” As such, we agree with the Examiner that the
calculation is not disclosed or described in the Specification. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 112, first paragraph, of claims 1—
30.
Rejection III (Indefiniteness)
Claims 1—30
The Examiner determines that
The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear inasmuch
as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid
infringement of this claim because they are not apprised of what
is to be determined as a “reputation.” The [Specification does
not disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm explaining how
one would generate a reputation value rendering it unclear to
how this is accomplished and what are the metes and bounds of
the claim
(Non-Final Act. 5—6). Appellants argue that the individual claim terms used
in the calculation (of reputation) are clear (e.g., “first metric”), that the
reputation can be based on a single variable, and that breadth is not to be
confused with indefiniteness, and that the Examiner is suggesting an
inappropriate narrowing of claim scope (Appeal Br. 10-15). However, for
the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that it is unclear what a
“reputation” is. The claim explains that “reputation” is “based on” variables
7
Appeal 2015-000927
Application 13/015,362
without providing the exact calculation. Nor does the Specification clarify
what the calculation is.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 112, second
paragraph, of claims 1—30.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—30 is affirmed.
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