Ex Parte Raskino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13230831 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/230,831 09/12/2011
69316 7590 09/27/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David A. Raskino
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.
333512.01 3445
EXAMINER
KIM,PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. RASKINO, STEVEN W. ICKMAN,
CHRISTOPHER C. McCONNELL, PAUL A. STECKLER,
and MATTHEW G. DYOR
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831 1
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, DAVID J. CUTITT A II, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 23,
and 28-35, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 3, 5,
7, 8, 11, 17-22, and 24--27 are cancelled. Claims App'x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 22, 2016
("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed November 25, 2016 ("Ans.");
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a public search system [i.e., search
engine]" used to (1) identify [i] a trusted resource (an expert) for a given
subject matter, [ii] a user that has a subject matter area that matches the
given subject matter of the trusted resource (an expert), [iii] unseen content
of interest in the given subject matter area that the trusted resource (an
expert) has interacted with and that the user has not already interacted with;
and then (2) present the unseen content of interest to the user indicating that
the trusted resource ( an expert) has interacted but the user has not yet
interacted with the unseen content of interest. Spec. ,r,r 6, 8, 30; Abstract.
According to Appellants, "by keeping track of what particular content has
already [been] seen, the [search] system can bring items of interest to the
user's attention, where the user has not yet seen those items." Abstract.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A computer-implemented method of presenting content to
a user in a search system that has a computer with a processor,
the method comprising:
automatically identifying, with the processor, a particular
person who is different than the user and is a trusted resource
for a subject matter area;
automatically identifying, with the processor, an area of
interest of the user based on a collection of past content
interactions;
determining, with the processor, that a subject matter of
the area of interest is enough correlated to the subject matter area
of the particular person who is a trusted resource to surpass a
Final Office Action mailed December 18, 2015 ("Final Act."); and original
Specification filed September 12, 2011 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
match threshold, wherein determining comprises determining
independent of any identified correlation between the user and
the particular person who is a trusted resource;
automatically identifying, with the processor, unseen
content of interest in the subject matter area based on a
determination that the particular person who is a trusted
resource has interacted with the unseen content of interest in the
subject matter area and that the user has not already interacted
with the unseen content of interest in the subject matter area; and
generating a user interface display that presents the unseen
content of interest to the user, wherein the display includes an
indication that the particular person who is a trusted resource
has interacted with the unseen content of interest.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App'x).
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 23, 28, and 33-35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Gradin et al. (US
2011/0137940 Al; published June 9, 2011; "Gradin"), Darnell et al. (US
8,060,634 Bl; issued Nov. 15, 2011; "Darnell"), and Macadaan et al. (US
2008/0209343 Al; published Aug. 28, 2008; "Macadaan"). Final Act. 2-9.
(2) Claims 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Gradin, Darnell, Macadaan, and Feng et al. (US
2008/0010259 Al; published Jan. 10, 2008). Final Act. 9-11.
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and similarly, claim
14, the Examiner finds Gradin teaches most aspects of Appellants' claimed
"method of presenting content to a user in a search system that has a
computer with a processor," including:
3
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
( 1) "automatically identifying, with the processor, a particular
person who is different than the user and is a trusted resource for
a subject matter area" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Gradin ,r,r 45, 115)
( emphasis omitted));
(2) "automatically identifying, with the processor, an area of interest
of the user based on a collection of past content interactions"
(Final Act. 3 ( citing Gradin ,r 115); and
(3) "automatically identifying, with the processor, unseen content of
interest in the subject matter area based on a determination that
the particular person who is a trusted resource has interacted with
the unseen content of interest in the subject matter area and that
the user has not already interacted with the unseen content of
interest in the subject matter area" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Gradin
,r 121) ( emphasis omitted)).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Macadaan and Darnell for teaching two missing limitations: (1)
"determining ... that a subject matter of the area of interest is enough
correlated to the subject matter area of the particular person who is a trusted
resource to surpass a match threshold" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Macadaan ,r 161)
( emphasis omitted)); and (2) "generating a user interface display that
presents the unseen content of interest to the user, wherein the display
includes an indication that the particular person who is a trusted resource has
interacted with the unseen content of interest" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Darnell
9:1-13, 9:41-50).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Gradin,
Macadaan, and Darnell. In particular, Appellants assert (1) "Gradin is
directed to selecting updates to associated records [ in a database system] to
publish on an information feed, where that information can be followed by
users"; and (2) the cited paragraphs [ 45] and [ 115] only describe "an
administrator of a tenant enables tracking of 'certain types of records"' and
4
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
"selects which record updates ... are to be tracked by the Gradin system"
and the tenant's ability "to create feed tracked updates only for certain types
of records." App. Br. 7-8 (citing Gradin ,r,r 40-42, 115, 121). Appellants
argue ( 1) the cited input of Gradin' s administrator or Gradin' s tenant does
not "identify[] ... a particular person who is different than the user and is a
trusted resource for a subject matter area" as recited in claim 1, and (2)
"Gradin does not describe or suggest that a determination is made as to
whether the user/follower has seen or not seen the content." App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants acknowledge Darnell teaches "displaying a count of
unread items specific to a particular user." App. Br. 9 (citing Darnell 9: 11-
13). However, Appellants argue "Darnell, like Gradin, does not disclose or
suggest determining that a trusted resource has interacted with unseen
content of interest" and, thus, does not teach or suggest "a user interface
display [that] 'includes an indication that the particular person who is a
trusted resource has interacted with the unseen content of interest"' as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. Likewise, Appellants acknowledge
Macadaan teaches the use of "a third party user who is an expert in the
subject matter of the user's new interest" but "does not remedy the failure of
the proposed Gradin/Darnell combination to achieve identifying a particular
person who is a trusted resource in a subject matter area and generating a
user interface display that 'includes an indication that the particular person
who is a trusted resource has interacted with the unseen content of interest."'
App. Br. 10-11.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that: ( 1) Gradin' s tenant
corresponds to Appellants' claimed "trusted resource" under the broadest
reasonable interpretation (Ans. 3); and (2) Appellants' features relating to "a
5
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
determination is made as to whether the user/follower has seen or not seen
the content" "are not recited in the rejected claim(s)" (Ans. 4).
We do not agree with the Examiner's position. At the outset, we note
the term "particular person who is different than the user and is a trusted
resource for a subject matter area" recited in claims 1 and 14, albeit given
their broadest reasonable interpretation, must still be interpreted consistent
with Appellants' Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[T]he proper BRI construction is not just the
broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification." In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d
1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) ("A construction that is 'unreasonably
broad' and which does not 'reasonably reflect the plain language and
disclosure' will not pass muster.").
In this case, the term "particular person who is different than the user
and is a trusted resource for a subject matter area" is described as an expert
and/or guru who has "displayed a great deal of knowledge," or who is
"widely followed, in a given topic area" and, as such, "[t]hese users are
trusted resources in their given topic areas." Spec. ,r 88. Moreover, in the
context of Appellants' claims 1 and 14, the "particular person who is
different than the user and is a trusted resource for a subject matter area" is
also required to "interact[] with the unseen content of interest in the subject
matter area" so that "a user interface display" can include "an indication that
the particular person who is a trusted resource has interacted with the unseen
content of interest."
6
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
Based on Appellants' Specification and the requirement of
Appellants' claims 1 and 14, we agree with Appellants that a "particular
person who is ... a trusted resource for a subject matter area" is not and
cannot be broadly interpreted to encompass Gradin' s disclosure of a tenant.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner does not demonstrate that
Gradin's tenant is an expert or guru or is "widely followed, in a given topic
area," rather than simply a customer. Spec. ,r 88; see Gradin ,r 44.
More importantly, Appellants' claims 1 and 14 also require the
identification of "unseen content of interest in the subject matter" based on
"a determination that the particular person who is a trusted resource has
interacted with the unseen content of interest in the subject matter area and
that the user has not already interacted with the unseen content of interest in
the subject matter area." We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
combination of Gradin, Darnell, and Macadaan does not teach or suggest
that ( 1) "a determination is made that a trusted resource has interacted with
content and an indication is displayed to a user ( other than the trusted
resource) that the trusted resource has interacted with the content" and (2) a
user interface display is provided with "an indication that the particular
person who is a trusted resource has interacted with the unseen content of
interest" in the manner recited in claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 10.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 and respective dependent claims 2,
4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 28, and 33-35. For the same reasons
discussed, we also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 29-32 as being obvious over Gradin, Darnell, Macadaan, and Feng.
7
Appeal2017-004153
Application 13/230,831
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 23, and 28-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 23, and 28-35.
REVERSED
8