Ex Parte ASHER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2018

12757456 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/757,456 04/09/2010
83619 7590 06/12/2018
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT- GB
ATTN: PA TENT DOCKETING
ROOM2A-207
ONEAT&TWAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrick J. ASHER
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.
2010-0160 (P38039) 2751
EXAMINER
CHAKRA V ART!, ARUNA VA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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
Exparte PATRICK I. ASHER, JOSEPH ANDERSON ALFRED,
FRANK CARIELLO, JOHN MICHAEL DONOVAN,
KENNETH ALAN DUELL, SREENIVASA RAO GORTI,
ADAM HEATH HERSH, LARRY B. PEARSON,
CHRISTOPHER WALKER RICE, SHARON JAUER DURHAM,
KELLY WILLIAMS, STEVEN NEIL TISCHER,
and SANJA Y MACW AN
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
Technology Center 3600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 21, and 22, which constitutes all
claims pending and rejected in the current application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an innovation pipeline, and more
specifically, to a method for evaluating unique content submissions. Spec.
1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for evaluating unique content generated by a
group of individual online users, comprising:
providing, via and by a tangible host server of a social
networking content submission system, a webpage of a social
networking website interface for a first user to submit unique
content and for a second user to submit unique content;
collecting, via and by the tangible host server, first
unique content provided by the first user;
collecting, via and by the tangible host server, second
unique content provided by the second user;
analyzing, by the social networking content submission
system, the first unique content to identify a type of the first
unique content and the second unique content to identify a type
of the second unique content;
identifying, by the social networking content submission
system and based on the analyzing, the type of the first unique
content and the type of the second unique content;
labeling the first unique content with the type of the first
unique content and the second unique content with the type of
the second unique content;
automatically segregating, by the social networking
content submission system and based on the label of the first
unique content and the label of the second unique content, the
first unique content from the second unique content by
2
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
assigning the first unique content to a first group and the second
unique content to a second group;
segregating a first group of rating users of the social
networking content submission system from a second group of
rating users of the social networking content submission by
restricting the first group of rating users from evaluating the
second group of unique content and by restricting the second
group of rating users from evaluating the first group of unique
content;
presenting the first group of unique content for
evaluation by the first group of rating users to vote for
submissions in the first group of unique content, and the second
unique content for evaluation by the second group of rating
users to vote for submissions in the second group of unique
content;
accepting user input ratings from the first group of rating
users and the second group of rating users so as to rate the first
unique content and second unique content, the user input
ratings having different weights for different users in the first
group of rating users and in the second group of rating users;
evaluating, in a first evaluation stage, the first unique
content and second unique content based on an automated
aggregation of the user input ratings from the individual users
of the social networking website interface, and
comparatively ranking the first unique content with other
unique content in the first group and the second unique content
with other unique content in the second group based on results
of the evaluating,
wherein the first unique content is advanced based on the
comparative ranking and the second unique content is not
advanced based on the comparative ranking.
3
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Si et al. (US
2012/0215773 Al; published Aug. 23, 2012) ("Si") and Lu (US 8,311,948
Bl; issued Nov. 13, 2012).
ANALYSIS
35 US.C. § 101 Rejection
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The Examiner determines the claims are directed to "a) identifying,
labeling and separating unique content submission by users in a social
network; b) collecting ratings of content by users having different weights;
and c) ranking content based on aggregated ratings," which "constitute[]
certain methods of organizing human activities (identifying unique social
networking content submissions, collecting content ratings), and/or
mathematical relationships and formulas ( counting ratings/votes, ranking
content based on aggregated ratings/votes)." Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans.
2-3. The Examiner further determines Appellants' invention "is ultimately
directed to gathering a list of ideas, rating them, ranking them selecting the
4
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
most innovated ideas for development" so "the invention embodies an idea
of itself." Ans. 3.
Appellants argue "an Abstract Idea must be supported by an Abstract
Idea identified by the judiciary in a precedential decision" and "[ n Jo
precedential decision issued by the judiciary supports the current rejection of
[the] claims." App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding the non-statutory subject
matter rejection. See Final Act. 2-3, 13-14, Ans. 2-3. The claims are
directed to collecting information ( e.g., first unique content, second unique
content, user input ratings), analyzing the information ( e.g., identifying and
labeling content, segregating content and users, evaluating content), and
ranking the information (e.g., ranking content based on the results of the
evaluation), which falls within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Electric
Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
("collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis" are "abstract-idea processes"); Bascmn Glob.
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("filtering content"); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("organizing information using tabular formats");
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ("organizing information through mathematical
correlations"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("1) collecting data,
2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that
recognized data in a memory").
5
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
Moreover, as the Examiner observes (Ans. 3), although certain steps
in claim 1 are performed by a tangible host server, these recited steps
involve acts that can be performed in the human mind, without the use of
any machine, or by a human using pen and paper. For example, providing
and collecting unique content can be performed via written correspondence.
Likewise, analyzing, identifying, labeling, and segregating the content can
be performed manually. "[A] method that can be performed by human
thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under
§ 101." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Mental processes remain unpatentable even when
automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been
done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.").
In the second step of the Alice analysis, we "consider the elements of
each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).
In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept' - i.e.,
an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the additional elements in the claims
amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a
6
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
computer and/or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds the
technological environment "contains no more than purely functional, routine
and generic components for submitting user content (including ratings about
user content), labeling content, aggregating and ranking ratings without any
meaningful limitations," which is "nothing more than doing on a generic
computer what can be accomplished using pencil and paper or a
chalkboard." Ans. 4. The Examiner further determines the claims "do not
purport to improve the functioning of a social network or effect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field." Ans. 5.
Appellants argue "the pending claims recite significantly more than
the purported abstract idea" and are
directed to a method that comprehensively provides for a
system with an ordered combination of features for accepting
unique content, analyzing the unique content in order to present
it to a proper group of voters, enforcing voting rules to allow
certain voters to vote for certain content, and allowing for
advancement of the unique content with the best comparative
ranking.
App. Br. 14--15. Appellants further argue the claims require a "specialized
computer system, which includes a tangible host server of a social
networking content submission system that uses a webpage." Reply Br. 7;
see also Reply Br. 8. According to Appellants, the claims recite "an
innovative computer-based methodology that is a technological
advancement over conventional methodologies." Reply Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 8-9.
7
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 4--8. The
claims recite a "tangible host server," a "webpage," a "social networking
content submission system," i.e., generic computer components, which do
not satisfy the inventive concept. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted) ("[ A ]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of
generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible. The bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather
than purely conceptual realm 'is beside the point."') Although Appellants
argue a "specialized computer system" is required, Appellants do not direct
our attention to, nor do we see, anything in the Specification that supports
that the claim elements are anything more than generic computer elements
performing generic computer functionality. For example, the Specification
describes a "general computer system" that "can also be implemented as or
incorporated into various devices, such as a personal computer (PC), a tablet
PC, a set-top box (STB ... or any other machine capable of executing a set
of instructions" and a general "application server." Spec. 4, 7-11; Figs. 1, 2.
The Specification further describes "the computer system 100 may include a
processor 110, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics
processing unit (GPU), or both." Spec. 5. As such, reading the claims to
require anything other than routine and generic computer components would
raise the question of whether the Specification properly enables one of
ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. See, e.g., page 3 of the
USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to
Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
8
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), April 19, 2018 ("A specification demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements ... in a
manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-
known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such
additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).")
Moreover, some limitations do not even recite use of a computer (for
example, "segregating a first group ... ," "presenting the first group ... ,"
"accepting user input ratings ... ," "comparatively ranking ... "), so we
agree with the Examiner that "a computer is not even necessary to carry out
the Appellant's invention." See Ans. 6. Thus, the mere mention of certain
claimed computer hardware components in other limitations does not impose
sufficiently meaningful limitations on claim scope beyond these mental
steps. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 1375.
Appellants have not adequately explained how the claims are
performed such that they are not routine, conventional functions of a generic
computer, nor have Appellants explained how the claims recite a
technological improvement in computer capabilities. The claims at issue do
not require nonconventional computer components, or even a "non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,"
but merely call for performance of the claimed presenting, collecting,
analyzing, identifying, labeling, and evaluating, functions "on a set of
generic computer components." Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-
7, 9-12, 21, and 22.
9
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
35 USC§ 103 Rejection
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, "identifying, by the social
networking content submission system and based on the analyzing, the type
of the first unique content and the type of the second unique content,"
(hereafter "the identifying limitation,") "labeling the first unique content
with the type of the first unique content and the second unique content with
the type of the second unique content," (hereafter "the labeling limitation"),
automatically segregating, by the social networking content
submission system and based on the label of the first unique
content and the label of the second unique content, the first
unique content from the second unique content by assigning the
first unique content to a first group and the second unique
content to a second group,
(hereafter "the automatically segregating based on label limitation"), and
segregating a first group of rating users of the social networking
content submission system from a second group of rating users
of the social networking content submission by restricting the
first group of rating users from evaluating the second group of
unique content and by restricting the second group of rating
users from evaluating the first group of unique content
(hereafter "the segregating and restricting limitation").
The Examiner relies on Si to teach or suggest the identifying, labeling,
automatically segregating based on label, and segregating and restricting
limitations in claim 1. Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 11-12. Specifically, the
Examiner finds "Appellants' Specification discloses segregating unique
submissions based on date and/or time of entry, based on labels for content
of the unique submissions, or based on details of the individual submitter for
each unique submission." Ans. 11, citing Spec. ,r 33. The Examiner relies
on paragraph 22 ( describing that the user-generated content can include the
10
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
content items themselves, as well as metadata associated with the user-
generated content, such as a user identification or a date), and paragraphs 28,
36, and 37 (referring to timestamps of user-generated content) of Si to teach
the disputed limitations, and finds "it would have been obvious to separate
or segregate content by metadata." Ans. 11-12; see also Final Act. 5-8.
With respect to restricting certain voters from evaluating certain content, the
Examiner relies on paragraphs 8 and 19 of Si, which refer to restricting user
access based on low quality contributions. Ans. 12; see also Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue Si "is analyzing and scoring user submissions for
quality" which is "entirely different ... [from] analyz[ ing] content only to
categorize/segregate the content, but users evaluate the content and submit
votes based on their evaluations." App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 10, 11,
13. Appellants further argue Si "is ultimately evaluating the users
themselves in order to assign a credential score," but claim 1 recites "users
are evaluating content rather than other users." App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br.
11. Appellants also argue Si does not teach "segregating content into groups
for voting by different groups of users; or even accepting user input ratings
of content" or "providing a different weighting to a user's vote." App. Br.
20; see also App. Br. 21-22, Reply Br. 11-14. In addition, Appellants argue
modifying Si with the teachings of Lu would not remedy Si's deficiencies.
App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 11.
Si generally describes analyzing the quality of user-generated content
so that each user and user-generated content item may be associated with a
relative quality value based upon the interactions between users. Si
Abstract, ,r 18. More specifically, Si describes users interacting with each
other on web sites that host user-generated content, for example, "a first user
11
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
may post a question to a discussion forum and a second user may post a
response to the question," and "[t]his exchange of information between two
users may be described as an interaction." Si ,r 18; see also Si ,r 5. Si
provides for quality weighting of interactions between users and also
generates user credential scores based upon interactions between users. Si
,r 18. For example, users may be assigned authority scores or
contributiveness scores. Si ,r 18. "[U]ser interactions may be viewed as a
vote of confidence, such that numerous interactions, particularly interactions
involving particularly authoritative and/or contributive users, tend to
increase the user credential score(s)." Si ,r 18. With regard to the user-
generated content, quality of the content is measured ( e.g., topic relevance,
contributiveness, descriptiveness, or reputation of the source) in order to
improve the ranking of search results. Si ,r 18.
Si describes use of a web server that includes a user-generated content
repository and a user data repository. Si ,r 22. The web server interacts with
an interaction processing server that includes a content analysis module. Si
,r,r 20, 26. The content analysis module analyzes the content and interactions
represented within user-generated content and generates scores related to the
relevance and quality of individual content items (interaction data) and the
authority or contributiveness of each user providing user-generated content
(user data). Si. ,r 26. The post analysis module (part of the content analysis
module) can analyze the user-generated content item or post to produce a
quality value, analyzing, for example, its relevance to the forum topic,
appropriateness of language, and/or originality. Si ,r 28, Fig. 1. A quality
score is assigned to each content item. Si ,r 28. Further, user credential
scores are assigned to users by a user credential module ( again, part of the
12
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
content analysis module) based on the quality of the content item provided
by the user as well as the quality of the interactions the user has become
involved with. Si ,r,r 31, 33, Fig. 1. Therefore, as users submit user-
generated content to the web server, the user generated content is provided
to the interaction processing server where the content is analyzed and scored
based upon the quality of the contributions by the post analyzer, and the user
credential scores are also periodically or continually updated. Si ,r 33.
Having considered the Examiner's findings, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Si teaches or suggests
the identifying, labeling, automatically segregating based on label, and
segregating and restricting limitations. Although Si describes various
metadata associated with the content (paragraphs 22, 28, 36, and 37), Si does
not explicitly describe identifying, labeling, or automatically segregating
content based upon that metadata as recited in the claim. 1 Moreover, the
users in Si do not vote or provide user input ratings to rate or evaluate the
user-generated content. Rather, as described above, the system analyzes and
scores the content. 2 Therefore, a user cannot be segregated and restricted
from evaluating content when the user does not evaluate that content in the
first place.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore,
do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
1 Although Si describes that a user may have different user credential scores
for different categories or labels associated with the user-generated content,
Si ,r 19, Si does not explicitly describe how these labels are identified or
assigned.
2 Although not relied upon by the Examiner, we note Lu describes users
voting on content. See Lu, col. 6, 11. 1-10.
13
Appeal2017-003400
Application 12/757,456
claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-12, 21, and 22.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12,
21, and 22 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-
12, 21, and 22 is reversed
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14