Green, Jeffry Keith.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2019

13705871 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/705,871
7590
Philip H. Coelho
FILING DATE
12/05/2012
11/26/2019
1550 12th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95818
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffry Keith Green
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.
380.02 8005
EXAMINER
SALOMON, PHENUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFRY KEITH GREEN
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6-11, 15-20, and 22-31, which
are all the claims pending in this application. 3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on October 24, 2019.
2 We use the word "Appellant" to refer to "applicant" as defined in
37 C.F.R. § l.42(a) (2017). Appellant, appearing prose, identifies the real
party in interest as Jeffry Keith Green. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 3-5, 12-14, 21, 32, and 33 have been canceled.
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure is directed "to a system having a utility
function for a user interface that enables the user to focus his or her attention
on primary personal relationships." Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a mobile phone;
a user interface for interacting with at least one personal
relationship of a user, wherein said at least one personal
relationship is one of primary or non-primary;
a utility function; the utility function for said user
interface being integrated into said mobile phone; the utility
function allows the user to select individuals for interaction
from the at least one personal relationship displayed on the
home screen the utility function allowing the user to switch
between relationship-centric mode and app-centric mode; and
the utility function customizes a plurality of interaction
modalities to interact with said at least one personal relationship
of the user;
wherein said at least one personal relationship of the user
is selectable by the user from real life individuals having a real
life relationship with the user;
wherein relationship-centric mode allows the user to only
interact with primary personal relationships;
and wherein app-centric mode allows the user to interact
with both primary and non-primary relationships.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 15-20, and 22-31 stand rejected 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (pre-AIA) as being anticipated by La Rotonda (US 2006/0184578
Al; pub. Aug. 17, 2006). See Final Act. 2-7.
2
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
ANALYSIS
Appellant specifically argues claim 1 and states the remaining claims
(i.e., independent claims 11 and 22, as well as the other dependent claims)
are distinguishable over the prior art based on the reasons presented for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. We select independent claim 1 for review, with
the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response,
supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by
Appellant. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (see Final Act. 2-8)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2-3). However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
CONTENTIONS
Claim 1 is directed to a system including a user interface on a mobile
device for interacting with primary or non-primary personal relationships of
a user, that allows the user "to select individuals for interaction from the at
least one personal relationship displayed on the home screen" and "to switch
between relationship-centric mode and app-centric mode." The claim
defines the personal relationship as "primary" or "non-primary" such that
"[the] relationship-centric mode allows the user to only interact with primary
personal relationships" and "[the] app-centric mode allows the user to
3
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
interact with both primary and non-primary relationships." Appeal Br. 8
(Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that La Rotonda discloses the recited "interacting
with at least one personal relationship of a user" as the user interface 300
which allows lists 310 to be viewable only to the users who are assigned first
degree relationships or others without such assignment. Final Act. 2-3
( citing La Rotonda ,r 42, Figs 1, 3). The Examiner also finds that "allowing
the user to switch between relationship-centric mode and app-centric mode"
is met with the disclosure in paragraphs 41--43 of La Rotonda related to the
user specifying that lists 310 will be viewable only to other users that are
assigned first degree relationships, or alternatively third degree relationships
or higher, by the client user. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues the Examiner's proposed rejection is in error
because:
[I]n La Rotonda, the system filters messages based on a
hierarchy of relationships, while in the present application
filtering is occurring based on a set of criteria chosen by the
user. None are necessary better or worse or higher or lower in
any hierarchy, but they are discretely chosen by the user. In the
present invention, it has been clarified that the user specifically
and by the user's own choice selects individuals regardless of
the type of relationship and even regardless whether there is a
relationship or not.
Appeal Br. 4--5 (emphases added). According to Appellant, La Rotonda
"enables a first user to preview content as seen by a second user, which
implies a two-way relationship," whereas the recited system is "one
directional and much more static" with "no reciprocal requirement on the
part of the other user." Appeal Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant challenges the
4
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
Examiner's characterization of the recited "primary personal relationships"
as the "first degree relationship" in La Rotonda by stating:
However, a careful reading and consideration of the above
phrase shows only that the La Rotonda user can specify that
certain lists will be viewable only to other users, whereas the
claimed subject matter calls for the user to only be allowed to
interact with others. There is a subtle but powerful difference
between the systems that must be considered by the BP AI.
While it is appreciated that between any two documents there
may exist common vocabulary, the prior art process relied upon
is distinctly and inherently reciprocal from the claim. A further
reading of La Rotonda shows the system enables a first user to
preview content as seen by a second user, which implies a two-
way relationship, but the instant application "allows the user to
only interact" with certain other users.
Reply Br. 2.
The core issue in dispute is whether the claim language "interacting
with at least one personal relationship" and "primary or non-primary"
relationships in Claim 1 encompasses the user specifying which group of
other users having different degrees of relationship may view content
provided by the user, as described in La Rotonda. There is no dispute that
La Rotonda discloses that the client user specifies which group of other
users having different degrees of relationship may view content provided by
the client user. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Rather, Appellant argues that
"filtering messages based on a hierarchy of relationships" in La Rotonda is
not the same as the claimed "filtering [is] based on a set of criteria chosen by
the user." Appeal Br. 4.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
We begin with claim interpretation, because before a claim is properly
interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art or analyzed for
5
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
patent eligibility. Regarding claim construction, we give this phrase the
broadest reasonable interpretation that is "consistent with the specification."
In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "[T]he PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification . . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). "[As applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a
broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant
or patentee." Id. During examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d
1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed term
"interact," in view of the Specification, encompasses any functionality
allowed based on the application for connecting the user with other users or
contacts. Appellant has not pointed to any portion of the disclosure for
defining the term "interact," whereas the term is used in its generic form in
the Specification and is only described based on "interaction modality" or
the type of application that allows the user communicate with the other
users. See e.g., Spec. ,r,r 16, 3 7 ( describing modality as information
concerning voice calls, SMS (Short Message Service), social networking
sites, file sharing, photos, videos, and calendars).
Second, the ambiguity at issue here is that Appellant's arguments (see
Appeal Br. 4--5) are based on a very specific interpretation that the claimed
6
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
subject matter relates to a "one directional and much more static" relation or
dealing that does not need reciprocal relation from the other user. The claim
is not so limited. Thus, according to the Specification, interaction modalities
including file sharing, photos, videos and calendars are among the recited
interactions available to the user, which may require a two-way relationship
or constitute a one directional relationship. See Spec. ,r 16.
Therefore, the Examiner's treatment of La Rotonda's client user using
the interface "to specify that lists 310 will be viewable only to other users
that the client user has assigned first degree relationships" with the first
degree relationship being equated to the recited "primary personal
relationships" is consistent with the claims as interpreted in light of the
Specification. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3 (citing La Rotonda ,r 42).
Similarly, the Examiner properly characterizes the option for viewing "by
other users at a third degree relationship or higher ( e.g., 2nd degree or 1st
degree)" as the recited "non-primary relationships." See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3
( citing La Rotonda ,r 42). Appellant has not apprised us of error in this
interpretation or the Examiner's findings based thereon. Instead, Appellant
focuses on a limited definition or meaning of the term "interaction" as
"static, one directional" without specifying the exact language in the claim
or any parts of the Specification for support. See Reply Br. 2.
ANTICIPATION
Claim 1
La Rotonda relates to a system for "[ e ]nab ling a first user to preview
content as it would be seen by a second user, if the second user had a
selected user relationship with the first user." See La Rotonda Abs. Based
on the broadest but reasonable interpretation of the claim terms "interact"
7
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
and "relationship," La Rotonda discloses a user interface of a mobile device
that allows the user to interact with at least one personal relationship of the
user. La Rotonda Fig. 3, ,r 40 ("a screen of a client user interface 300 that
enables a client to edit and view content controlled by the client user"). The
recited "interacting" is further met by the function of sharing or making
viewable content related to the user such as list of things, profile
information, and photos, or other content such as web sites, calendar, or
other services, to list a few. See La Rotonda ,r 41 ("lists 310 of things
relevant the client user, profile information 312 about the client user, photos
314 provided by the client user"). With respect to the recited personal
relationship being "one of primary or non-primary," the client user sets
parameters associated with a specific content to specify which other users
can view the content based on the assigned degree of relationships to those
other users. See La Rotonda ,r 42 ("[t]he client user can edit the content
through client user interface 300 and can set parameters associated with each
type of content and/ or portions of content" and "the client user can use a
portion of client user interface 300 to specify that lists 310 will be viewable
only to other users that the client user has assigned first degree
relationships").
More specifically, Paragraph 42 of La Rotonda discloses specifying
the content is viewable by other users who are assigned third degree
relationship or others who are assigned a higher degree relationship, such as
first or second degrees. As such, assigning the relationship level and
determining which relationships define the "other user" who can view the
content meets the recited selection of "relationship-centric" and app-centric"
modes. See La Rotonda ,r 42 ("The relationship is generally assigned by the
8
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
client user, but may be determined based on client behavior, predefined
settings, or other parameters."), ,r 43 ("Client user interface 300 may include
a preview selection-drop-down box 320 that enables the client user to select
a relationship.").
In view of the discussion above regarding the recited "interact" and
"primary or non-primary" personal relationship, and because Appellant's
arguments do not distinguish the disputed claim features from the client user
interface of La Rotonda, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
disclosure of La Rotonda anticipates the subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 22
The Examiner rejected independent claims 11 and 22 on the same
basis as claim 1, because, as found by the Examiner, claims 11 and 22 recite
substantially the same subject matter as claim 1. See Final Act. 4, 6.
Appellant argues the patentability of these claims by referring to the same
arguments presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. In light of our analysis
above and Appellant's acknowledgement that claims 11 and 22 recite
limitations similar to those of claim 1 (see id.), we conclude the Examiner
did not err in relying upon the analysis of claim 1 to support the rejection of
claims 11 and 22. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11 and 22.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding La Rotonda discloses the
disputed elements of claim 1, as well as independent claims 11 and 22 and
the remaining dependent claims which are not argued separately or with
9
Appeal2017-002640
Application 13/705,871
sufficient specificity. See Appeal Br. 6. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (pre-AIA) rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 15-20, and 22-31.
In summary:
1, 2, 6-11,
15-20,22-31
Overall
Outcome
DECISION SUMMARY
102 La Rotonda 1,2,6-11,
15-20,22-31
1,2,6-11,
15-20,22-31
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10