Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2020005415 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021)

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.
14/644,341 03/11/2015 Ter Chrng Ng 2006.037US1 6881
160546 7590 01/01/2021
Mannava & Kang, P. C.
3201 Jermantown Road
Suite 525
Fairfax, VA 22030
EXAMINER
HENRY, RODNEY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
docketing@mannavakang.com
fb-pdoc@fb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte TER CHRNG NG
____________

Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,3411
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Facebook, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM IN PART.
THE INVENTION
Appellant states “this invention relates to a user interface tool for
applying universal action tags.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method comprising:
sending, by an online system, a user interface including a
display of a webpage of a third party system comprising a
plurality of webpage elements and a first user interface control
allowing a first user to graphically highlight a subset of
webpage elements of the plurality of webpage elements;
receiving, via the user interface, a graphical highlight of
the subset of webpage elements applied by the first user;
providing, via the user interface, a second user interface
control allowing the first user to create a plurality of tags on the
webpage, each tag associated with at least one webpage element
of the subset of webpage elements, and each tag defining a tag-
side rule causing data describing user interactions with the at
least one webpage element to be sent to the online system upon
activation of the tag;
storing data associating the subset of webpage elements
with the plurality of tags received via the user interface;
sending, by the third-party system, the webpage to a
device of a second user, wherein the second user is a user of the
online system, the webpage comprising the subset of webpage
elements associated with the plurality of tags, wherein the
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

3

webpage is configured to send data describing user interactions
with the subset of webpage elements to the online system;
responsive to activation of one of the plurality of tags at
the device of the second user, receiving at the online system
data describing user interactions of the second user with the at
least one webpage element associated with the tag based on the
corresponding tag-side rule, the data including a device
identifier;
determining a user identifier corresponding to the
received device identifier, the determining comprising
comparing the device identifier with information stored in a
plurality of user profiles, wherein at least a user profile in the
plurality of user profiles is associated with a plurality of device
identifiers;
applying at least one server-side rule at the online system
to analyze the data received at the system describing user
interactions of the second user with the at least one webpage
element; and
storing a result of the analysis in a user profile associated
with the second user.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Ramalingam et al.
(“Ramalingam”)
US 8,341,029 Bl Dec. 25, 2012
Wu et al. (“Wu”) US 2013/0226711 Al Aug. 29, 2013
Shottan et al. (“Shottan”) US 2014/0282036 Al Sept. 18, 2014
The following rejection is before us for review.
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

4

Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, in view of Shottan, and further in view of
Ramalingam.
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

5

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 2–29,
excluding those findings made for claim 6.
2. Wu discloses: “Each user can be associated with a unique user
identifier, and the user profiles can be organized by user identifier.”
(Wu ¶ 38).
3. Wu discloses:
After receiving the image data, the social networking system
can store the image data in the image store 112. The social
networking system 110 may also update the index of the image
store 112 to include the image and to associate the image with
the user identifier of the first user.
(Wu ¶ 45).
4. Wu discloses: “a conversion occurs when a user performs a
specified action. For example, a conversion can occur when a user clicks on
the image, is referred to a web page associated with the advertisement, and
then consummates a purchase before leaving that web page.” Wu ¶ 41.
5. Wu discloses:
After the portion of the image that depicts the purse 510 has
been defined by the box 515, a list of advertisers 530 may be
presented to the user so that the user can select the appropriate
advertiser, as shown in FIG. SB. The example list 530 includes
several purse designers 535 for the user to select from, for
example using the mouse cursor 520. To get to this particular
list 505 that identifies purse designers, the user may specify that
the object is a purse, or the social networking system 110 may
detect that the object enclosed by the box 515 is likely a purse.
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

6

(Wu ¶ 85).
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

7

6. Ramalingam discloses:
FIG. 4 shows multiple data stores including user information
122, merchant profiles 124, and an advertisement database 126
that may be included within or connected to the server(s) 118.
The user information 122 may contain some or all of the same
information stored as user information 210 on the mobile
device 104. In some implementations, the user information 122
stored on the server(s) 118 may be used to backup or restore the
user information 210 on the mobile device 104 if, for example,
the mobile device 104 is lost or damaged. The user information
122 may provide separate data associated with each of the user
identifiers 208-306 shown in FIG. 2. For example, User ID (1)
208 may be associated with payment information 402, a user
profile 404, a transaction record 406, and a list of trusted
merchants 408. The payment information 402 may include such
things as credit card or debit card numbers, bank account
information, electronic payment system information, and/or the
like.
(Ramalingam, col. 7: 52–65).
7. Ramalingam discloses:
The user identification 208 may be a unique number or code
that uniquely identifies the user 102 of the mobile device 104.
This user identification 208 may be the same user identification
208 that the user 102 uses for interacting with online merchants
and the like. In some implementations, the user identification
208 may be entered by the user 102 into the mobile device 104
during a setup procedure such as by entering a user name and a
password. In other implementations, the user identification 208
may be included in hardware of the mobile device 104. For
example, a unique serial number of the mobile device 104 may
be linked with a user name and password when the user 102
purchases the device 104. As a further example, a subscriber
identification module (SIM) on a removable SIM card within
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

8

the device 104 may contain the user identification 208. In this
example, the user identification 208 may be transferred between
devices by moving the SIM card.
(Ramalingam col. 5:3–19).
8. Ramalingam discloses:
The user information 122 may contain some or all of the same
information stored as user information 210 on the mobile
device 104. In some implementations, the user information 122
stored on the server(s) 118 may be used to backup or restore the
user information 210 on the mobile device 104 if, for example,
the mobile device 104 is lost or damaged. The user information
122 may provide separate data associated with each of the user
identifiers 208-306 shown in FIG. 2. For example, User ID (1)
208 may be associated with payment information 402, a user
profile 404, a transaction record 406, and a list of trusted
merchants 408.
(Ramalingam col. 7: 52–62).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) REJECTION
The rejection is affirmed as to claims 1–5, 7–20, and reversed as to
claim 6.
The Appellant argues claims 1–20 as a group. (Appeal Br. 72). Claims
1, 8, and 15 are independent. We select claim 1 as the representative claim
for this group. The Appellant does not provide a substantive argument as to
the separate patentability of claims 2–5, 9–14, and 16–20 that depend from

2 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. For purposes of this
decision we reference Appeal Brief pages counted from the title page to the
end page.
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

9

claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Therefore, claims 2–5 and 8–20 fall with
claim 1. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

10

Appellant argues,
In Shottan, users are required to (1) code the tag
themselves, and (2) associate the tag with particular data. These
requirements are associated with the problems of conventional
tags the claimed invention addresses. As discussed above, the
claimed invention addresses the problem of conventional tags
that ‘require manual changes to code associated with a specific
tag on a specific webpage to change the content of reported data
or to indicate what event is counted when the tag fires.’
Specification at ¶ 12.
(Appeal Br. 10).
Appellant’s arguments “fail from the outset because . . . they are not
based on limitations appearing in the claims.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 1 only generally recites:
allowing the first user to create a plurality of tags on the
webpage, each tag associated with at least one webpage element
of the subset of webpage elements, and each tag defining a
tagside rule causing data describing user interactions with the at
least one webpage element to be sent to the online system upon
activation of the tag.
As is apparent from this limitation, the claim leaves open how the plurality
of tags are created on the webpage. Appellant’s argument fails to show
where in the claims the asserted distinction of not “requir[ing] manual
changes to code associated with a specific tag on a specific webpage to
change the content of reported data or to indicate what event is counted
when the tag fires” is recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10).
Appellant next argues, “[t]he claimed invention further provides a
tagging system to collect data ‘describing user interactions with at least one
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

11

webpage element.’ Id. Therefore, Shottan does not teach or suggest the
limitation of ‘each tag associated with at least one webpage element of the
subset of webpage elements.’” (Appeal Br. 10).
That argument is not well taken because the Appellant is attacking the
Shottan reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination
of references to Wu and Shottan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757–58 (CCPA 1968). The
Examiner relied on Wu at paragraph 41 and Figure 7 to disclose a user
interface control allowing a first user to graphically highlight a subset of
webpage elements of the plurality of webpage elements. (Final Act. 3). Wu
at paragraph 41 discloses “a conversion can occur when a user clicks on the
image, is referred to a web page associated with the advertisement.” (FF. 4).
Figure 7, and comparably Figures 5A and 5B of Wu, disclose “a list of
advertisers 530 may be presented to the user so that the user can select the
appropriate advertiser, as shown in FIG. SB. The example list 530 includes
several purse designers 535 for the user to select from, for example using the
mouse cursor 520.” (FF. 5). We find the example list 530 in Wu meets the
claimed, “subset of webpage elements” because the elements of the list are
individually selectable by the user. Id.
Appellant argues,
Ramalingam discusses, ‘[e]ach user identifier may be
associated with a respective mobile device. The user identifier
represents a user that is interacting with the server(s) via a
mobile device.’ Id at col. 6:57–60. Therefore, there is no need
for Ramalingam to identify which user profile is associated
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

12

with a received device identifier. . . . Therefore, Ramalingam
discusses multiple ways in which a user identifier is the same as
a device identifier, but does not teach or suggest the limitation
of ‘determining a user identifier corresponding to the received
device identifier,’ as required in claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 11–12 (alteration in original)).
We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner found Ramalingam meets
the claim limitation of, “comparing the device identifier with information
stored in a plurality of user profiles, wherein at least a user profile in the
plurality of user profiles is associated with a plurality of device identifiers,”
at col. 7:52–61, finding, “where user information (ID information), device
ID, profile ID, etc. is matched and compared to restore user information on
mobile devices for example in the case where devices are lost or damaged;”
also at col. 4:64, 65; 5:1–5, finding “[t]he user identification 208 may be a
unique number or code that uniquely identifies the user 102 of the mobile
device 104).” (Final Act. 9–10).
We agree with the Examiner. We begin by construing the terms in the
limitation, “determining a user identifier corresponding to the received
device identifier.” The Specification does not explicitly define the term
“device identifier,” hence we construe it to mean an identifier which is
associated with the device. First, we find that the user identification 208 of
Ramalingam is inextricably associated with its device because Ramalingam
discloses the user identification 208:
 may be a unique number or code that uniquely identifies the
user 102 of the mobile device 104 (FF. 7);
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

13

 may be the same user identification 208 that the user 102 uses
for interacting with online merchants and the like (id.);
 may be included in hardware of the mobile device 104– a
subscriber identification module (SIM) on a removable SIM
card within the device 104 may contain the user identification
208 (FF. 7).
 may be associated with payment information 402, a user profile
404, a transaction record 406, and a list of trusted merchants
408 (FF. 6).
Second, Wu discloses updating the index of the image store 112 to
include the image and to associate the image with the user identifier of the
first user. (FF. 3). Thus, both Wu and Ramalingam each discloses using a
user ID to interact with on–line merchants and connect to associated user
profiles. (FF. 2, 3, 7)
As best we can understand Appellant’s argument, is that Ramalingam
fails to determine a user identifier because it is one and the same with the
device identifier (“multiple ways in which a user identifier is the same as a
device identifier” (Appeal Br. 12)). The ordinary and customary definition
of “determine” means “to fix conclusively or authoritatively.”3 We find that
even where the device serial number (device identifier) is used as the user
identifier, that this data fixes conclusively the correspondence between the
device identifier and the user identifier and hence meets the claim limitation
of “determining a user identifier corresponding to the received device
identifier.”

3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine (last visited Dec.
16, 2020).
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

14

Appellant argues,
[t]he combination of Wu and Shottan would result in a tag that
is manually configured by a user to collect particular data as
specified by the user who placed the tag on the image and/or
website. Therefore, the combination of Wu and Shottan not
only fail to disclose the tags as claimed, but teach away from
the tags as claimed.
(Appeal Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellant. Wu and Shottan do not actually teach
away from every aspect of all shopping cart models. See In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, as long as the combination is not
directed to the discouraged aspects of adding tags to elements of a webpage,
there is no teaching away. That the combination would result in tags being
manually configured is unpersuasive because as stated above claim 1 does
not recite automatically but instead only broadly requires “allowing the first
user to create a plurality of tags on the webpage.”
We find Appellant’s hindsight argument (id.) unpersuasive because at
pages 8–10 of the Final Office Action the Examiner provided articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the obviousness
conclusion. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Absent specific,
technical arguments as to why the motivation is insufficient or why the
proposed combination is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions, we find Appellant’s hindsight
argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

15

Concerning claim 6, the Examiner found, “[t]he user information 122
[in Ramalingam] may provide separate data associated with each of the user
identifiers 208–306 shown in FIG. 2. For example, User ID (1) 208 may be
associated with payment information 402, a user profile 404, etc.).” (Final
Act. 13).
Appellant argues,
[h]owever, the user ID of a user stored on the server is the same
user ID stored on the mobile device of the user. This is seen
through Ramalingam’s use of reference character 208 to
represent User ID in both FIG. 2, which illustrates data stored
on a user device, and FIG. 3, which illustrates data stored on the
server. While Ramalingam discloses a user ID stored on both a
server and a mobile device, Ramalingam is silent on matching a
received device identifier with a separate user identifier
associated with a second user.
(Appeal Br. 15).
We agree with Appellant because the user device identifier in
Ramalingam as disclosed at column 7, lines 52–61 (also at columns 4:64,
65; 5:1–5) concerns activities caused by a first user interface control and not
as a result of a second user.
Concerning claim 7, Appellant argues, “Shottan provides a system
that is advertiser-specific: an advertiser generates and applies code to a
website to collect data that is relevant to that advertiser. The cited portions
of Shottan are silent on a system that includes an activated tag that
associated with two or more advertisers.” (Appeal Br. 15–16).
Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

16

The Examiner cites to paragraph 50 of Shottan stating, “(see Shottan .
. . . [0050] . . . the universal tag is triggered when a user lands on the
webpage and the user data is collected . . . see [0051] for other user captured
events . . . see FIG. 8A for multiple advertisers).” (Answer 8).
We disagree with Appellant. Our review of Shottan at Figure 8A,
confirms two or more advertisers (existing data providers) may be activated
as part of the universal tag. (See also Shottan ¶¶ 17, 106).
We also affirm the rejections of the other dependent claims since
Appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed in part.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Wu, Shottan,
Ramalingam
1–5, 7–20 6

Appeal 2020-005415
Application 14/644,341

17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART