Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 2020

2019004146 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020)

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. 13/899,353 05/21/2013 Sandhya Kunnatur 079894.1633 2914 168743 7590 10/19/2020 Jordan IP Law, LLC (Facebook) 12501 PROSPERITY DRIVE SUITE 401 SILVER SPRING, MD 20904 EXAMINER GURMU, MULUEMEBET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2020 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): admin@jordaniplaw.com info@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANDHYA KUNNATUR, SOREN BOGH LASSEN, MICHAEL CURTISS, and PILIP PRONIN Appeal 2019-004146 Application 13/899,353 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. RELATED APPEAL As Appellant notes, the following application relates to this application and is also on appeal: U.S. Patent Application No. 13/899,305, filed 21 May 2013, (“Appeal No. 2019-004145”). Appeal Br. 3. 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. 3. Appeal 2019-004146 Application 13/899,353 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a database sharing with update layer. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: by a top aggregator of a social-networking system, receiving an update of user activity associated with one or more content objects associated with a search term that has been parsed from a search query by the top aggregator, wherein the user activity comprises, by one or more users of an online social network, one or more interactions with one or more content objects, each content object being of a particular content-object type of a plurality of different content object types, each content object being indexed by a first partition aggregator of the social networking system on a term server, wherein the term server stores a list of identifier information corresponding to content objects of a plurality of different content-object types; by the top aggregator, determining whether the search term has a number of associated content objects indexed on the term server exceeding a pre-determined threshold number, wherein the pre-determined threshold number is determined based on the search term; and by a second partition aggregator of the social-networking system, responsive to the determination, promoting the identifier information from the term server to one or more index servers of a plurality of index servers, wherein each index server stores a list of identifier information corresponding to content objects of only a single content-object type of the plurality of different content-object types; and by the second partition aggregator, after promoting the identifier information to the index servers, deleting the promoted identifier information from the term server. Appeal 2019-004146 Application 13/899,353 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bennett US 2009/0144260 A1 June 4, 2009 Cao US 2010/0161617 A1 June 24, 2010 LaCroix US 2003/0074256 A1 April 17, 2003 Flatland US 2011/0040762 A1 Feb. 17, 2011 REJECTIONS In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3. Claims 1–20 are rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of co-pending application US 13/899,305. Final Act. 16–23. Claims 1–3, 5–11, and 13–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over Cao, Bennett, and LaCroix. Final Act. 23–40. Claims 4, 12, and 20 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over Cao, Bennett, LaCroix, and Flatland. Final Act. 40–42. OPINION Double Patenting Claims 1–20 are rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17 and 19–24 of co-pending application U.S. 13/899,305. Final Act. 12. Appellant Appeal 2019-004146 Application 13/899,353 4 does not traverse this rejection, and we therefore, sustain the rejection. 2 Appeal Br. 6. Obviousness Appellant argues, in part, that the proposed Cao-Bennett-LaCroix combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest “promoting the identifying information from the term server to one or more index servers.” Appeal Br. 13–14. In particular, Appellant argues that LaCroix merely discloses delivering “promotions” to cable television set-top boxes. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner repeats that LaCroix specifies the timing of promotion delivery to transmission groups. Ans. 6. We agree with Appellant that the cited “promotions” of LaCroix are advertisements for goods and services that are presented on video broadcast programming. LaCroix ¶ 28. Although the Examiner points to various paragraphs of LaCroix; for example, specifying the timing of delivery to transmission groups (Ans. 6), on this record, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the cited portions of LaCroix teach the claimed “promoting the identifying information from the term server to one or more index servers,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6. Accordingly, constrained as we are by the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–20. 2 The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection remains effective because co-pending application U.S. 13/899,305 is still pending and has the same effective U.S. filing date of May 21, 2013. See MPEP 1490(VI)(D)(2)(b). Appeal 2019-004146 Application 13/899,353 5 DECISION Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the decision rejecting claims 1–20. In particular, the Examiner’s rejections of the pending claims under double patenting as being unpatentable over the pending claims of co- pending application U.S. 13/899,305 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 Double Patenting 1–20 1–20 103 Cao, Bennett, Lacroix, Flatland 1–20 Overall Outcome: 1–20 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