Tinder, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021001591 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 14/927,789 10/30/2015 Sean Rad 083523.0102 4834 5073 7590 03/30/2022 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): PTOmail1@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEAN RAD Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tinder, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Specification is directed to a dating platform and particularly to a system and method for modifying a preference in searching for a match amongst users. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-27 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 22-28. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A system for profile matching, comprising: one or more interfaces operable to receive a first indication submitted by a first user indicating a first preference regarding a second user; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more interfaces, the one or more processors operable to determine that modifying the first preference is allowed because at least two conditions are met, the at least two conditions comprising: (1) that the first preference is a positive preference; and (2) that the second user has not expressed a positive preference for the first user; wherein the one or more processors are further operable to make a modification button available to the first user in response to determining that modifying the first preference is allowed because the at least two conditions are met; wherein the one or more processors are further operable to: prior to receiving a selection of the modification button by the first user, receive a second indication submitted by the second user indicating a positive preference of the second user for the first user, and in response to receiving the second indication submitted by the second user indicating the positive preference of the second user for the first user, remove the modification button from a display presented to the first user. Appeal Br. 1 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence: Name Reference Date Syed US 2005/0027707 A1 Feb. 3, 2005 Patil US 7,103,853 B1 Sept. 5, 2006 Fan US 2007/0286383 A1 Dec. 13, 2007 Stern US 2011/0243533 A1 Oct. 6, 2011 Cheng US 2015/0128095 A1 May 7, 2015 Mori US 2015/0381842 A1 Dec. 31, 2015 Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed, Stern, and Patil. Final Act. 4. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed, Stern, Patil, and Fan. Final Act. 9. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed, Stern, Patil and Cheng. Final Act. 10. Claim 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed, Stern, Patil, and Mori. Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires that a modification button is presented to the first user before the second user indicates a preference for the first user, but the modification button is removed from the display presented to the first user in response to receiving the second user indicating a positive preference for the first user. The Examiner finds Syed does not teach or suggest this disputed limitation, but Patil does. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Patil teaches allowing a designer of a document to hide a “mark complete” button. Id; see also Patil 3:44:50, Figs. 4, 8. Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 4 Appellant argues “Patil’s disclosure of a graphical user interface that allows designers to ‘create views and then hide/show actions at the top of the view based on conditions such as values in the document or values derived by formula from some of the fields in the document’ is not analogous to Appellant’s step of removing a modification button presented to a first user when a second user indicates a positive preference for the first user.” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further argues “the Examiner has not shown why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would have been motivated to modify the system disclosed in Syed to conditionally remove the modification button, even as allegedly disclosed in Patil, in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Syed.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the cited references to render obvious Appellant’s claimed invention, because, inter alia, the combination “enhances the user experience by allowing for flexible dynamic elements that reflect the opinions of all parties involved.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5. However, claim 1 recites the opposite of such motivation: it does not provide for “flexible dynamic elements that reflect the opinions of all parties involved.” On the contrary, claim 1 removes the modification button that would have allowed the first user to reflect an opinion of disinterest, even if the user dynamically has a reversal of preference. Thus, claim 1 does not allow for enhancing the user experience by allowing for flexibility. Moreover, we note, contrary to claim 1, Syed teaches that the users are allowed to change their preferences without restrictions. As such, Syed Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 5 presents, but never removes, the modification button from any user. See Syed ¶¶ 68-70, Fig. 4. Our reviewing court guides that the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Thus, we agree with Appellant’s arguments and are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. The Examiner has not established a reason sufficient to support combining the references, so as to render obvious the disputed claim 1 limitation: “in response to receiving the second indication submitted by the second user indicating the positive preference of the second user for the first user, remove the modification button from a display presented to the first user.” Accordingly, we find the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of Syed, Stern, and Patil. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite commensurate limitations that are rejected for the same reasons. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, or the claims dependent thereon. Appeal 2021-001591 Application 14/927,789 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 15, 22- 27 103(a) Syed, Stern, and Patil 1, 8, 15, 22- 27 4, 11, 18 103(a) Syed, Stern, Patil, and Fan 4, 11, 18 5, 12, 19 103(a) Syed, Stern, Patil and Cheng 5, 12, 19 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 103(a) Syed, Stern, Patil, and Mori 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1, 4-8, 11- 15, 18-27 REVERSED