Alexandre Capt et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020001344 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
13/190,152 07/25/2011 Alexandre Capt 058083-0855560 (B1393) 1617
72058 7590 05/28/2021
Adobe / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDRE CAPT and DAVID NUESCHELER
___________

Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22. Claims 3 and 14
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to profile simulation techniques
for dynamic content. (Abstract.)

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe,
Inc. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system, comprising:
a client device comprising a processor and a memory
having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the
processor, cause the client device to perform operations
comprising:
receiving, from a segmented component engine,
multiple segmented components stored in a segment
store, wherein the segmented component engine is
configured to determine that each of the stored multiple
segmented components matches a segment stored in the
segment store, the segment including a combination of
traits associated with a currently selected user profile;
displaying the multiple segmented components and
a user profile window including an indication of the
currently selected user profile, the user profile window
configured to receive inputs to edit profile attributes of
the currently selected user profile;
receiving a request to change the currently selected
user profile from a first user profile to a second user
profile, wherein the request does not include user
credentials associated with the first or second user
profiles;
in response to the request, changing the currently
selected user profile to the second user profile without
requiring input of user credentials associated with the
first or second user profiles;
receiving, from an observer component engine
configured to monitor for the change from the first user
profile to the second user profile, an indication of a given
segmented component of the multiple segmented
components, wherein the observer component engine is
further configured to determine that the given segmented
component is to be updated based on the change from the
first user profile to the second user profile;
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

3
dynamically refreshing the given segmented
component based on the second user profile;
displaying the dynamically refreshed given
segmented component and the user profile window; and
in response to receiving an input in the user profile
window to edit a profile attribute for the currently
selected user profile, repeating the refreshing.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Moores et al. US 2003/0149580 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Walsh et al. US 2004/0117460 A1 June 17, 2004
Refuah et al. US 2010/0050078 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
Kashyap et al. US 2010/0212001 A1 Aug. 19, 2010
Lawrence et al. US 2012/0158539 A1 June 21, 2012
Kim US 2012/0310751 A1 Dec. 6, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–6, 10–12, and 15–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, and Refuah.
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, and Walsh.2
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, and Lawrence.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, Lawrence, and Kim.

2 The Examiner inadvertently addressed cancelled dependent claim 14,
rather than dependent claim 13, in the statement and body of the rejection.
(Final Act. 12–14.)
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

4
OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, and Refuah
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 8–9) that the
combination of Kashyap, Moores, and Refuah would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein the
observer component engine is further configured to determine that the given
segmented component is to be updated based on the change from the first
user profile to the second user profile.”
The Examiner found that persona server 12 of Refuah, which stores
persona information to provide to WWW site 20, corresponds to the
limitation “a segmented component engine.” (Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 6–
7.) The Examiner further found that the search engine of Refuah
corresponds to the limitation “an observer component engine . . . wherein the
observer component engine is further configured to determine that the given
segmented component is to be updated based on the change from the first
user profile to the second user profile.” (Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 16–17.)
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Refuah relates to Internet information searching, “in particular to
personalizing interaction with an Internet.” (¶ 2.) Refuah explains that a
search mechanism, such as Internet search engines “may filter and/or sort
search results responsive to personality.” (¶ 18.) In particular, Figure 2 of
Refuah illustrates persona server configuration 11, which includes “client 10
. . . connected to a WWW site 18,” such that “persona server 20 provides
persona information to site 18, to enable site 18 to personalize it’s
interaction with client 10.” (¶ 166.) Refuah further explains that “[w]hen a
[web] site desires to personalize information and/or functionality, the site
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

5
queries the persona server [20] and the persona server responds for a
particular situation.” (¶ 28.) Moreover, Refuah explains that “a [web] site
may have predefined at least one parameter which automatically changes its
display format and/or information filtering mechanism, for example using a
predefined script, to match moods and/or personas which access the site.”
(¶ 197.)
Although the Examiner cited to the search engine of Refuah, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Refuah teaches the limitation “wherein the observer component engine is
further configured to determine that the given segmented component is to be
updated based on the change from the first user profile to the second user
profile.” In particular, because Refuah explains that WWW site 18 queries
persona server 20 (i.e., the claimed “segmented component engine”), rather
than the search engine (i.e., the claimed “observer component engine”) for
personalization information, Refuah does not teach the limitation “observer
component engine is further configured to determine that the given
segmented component is to be updated based on the change from the first
user profile to the second user profile.” In addition, Kashyap and Moores do
not cure the above noted deficiencies of Refuah.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
However, Refuah discloses that “a search engine will
transmit, to a persona server, a list of search results . . . [and
t]he persona server may then respond with an order which is
preferred by the requesting user.” Thus, Refuah appears to
disclose that a persona server, not a search engine, responds
with a preferred order (e.g., of search results). Refuah fails to
suggest that a search engine could indicate a given one of the
search results. And as the Examiner had previously cited the
disclosed persona server as teaching the recited segment store,
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

6
the disclosure of the persona server could not teach the recited
observer component engine.
(Reply Br. 8–9 (emphases omitted).)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4–6, 10–12, 15–18, 21, and 22 depend from
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4–6, 10–12, 15–18, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
19 and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, and Walsh
Claims 2 and 13 depend from independent claim 1. Walsh was cited
by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 2 and 13.
(Final Act. 12–14.) However, the Examiner’s application of Walsh does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Kashyap, Moores, and Refuah.

§ 103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, and Lawrence
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1. Lawrence was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 7. (Final Act. 14–
15.) However, the Examiner’s application of Lawrence does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kashyap, Moores, and Refuah.

§ 103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, Lawrence, and Kim
Claims 8 and 9 depend from independent claim 1. Kim was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 8 and 9. (Final
Appeal 2020-001344
Application 13/190,152

7
Act. 15–16.) However, the Examiner’s application of Kim does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kashyap, Moores, Refuah, and Lawrence.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

SUMMARY DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 10–
12, 15–22
103(a) Kashyap, Moores,
Refuah
1, 4–6,
10–12,
15–22
2, 13 103(a) Kashyap, Moores,
Refuah, Walsh
2, 13
7 103(a) Kashyap, Moores,
Refuah, Lawrence
7
8, 9 103(a) Kashyap, Moores,
Refuah, Lawrence,
Kim
8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–13,
15–22

REVERSED