Ex Parte Bilinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

14059550 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017)

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.
14/059,550 10/22/2013 Brandon Bilinski 030120-062510US 3524
16621 7590 10/18/2017
Morris & Kamlay LLP / 030120
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1050
Arlington, VA 22209
EXAMINER
CHOI, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
pto @ morriskamlay. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON BILINSKI, CYRUS PHIROZE MASTER, and
CURTIS GLENN HAWTHORNE1
Appeal 2015-004813
Application 14/059,550
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Google Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004813
Application 14/059,550
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed invention is directed to a method for generating
a landing page for displaying a plurality of displayed media items. See
Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below
(emphasis added).
1. A method comprising:
generating a landing page for displaying a plurality
of displayed media items, each displayed media item
being displayed in a separate section of the landing page,
wherein each displayed media item corresponds to a
category from among a set of categories,
for a first section of the landing page, selecting a
first category from among the set of categories based on
a display probability for the first category, wherein each
category in the set of categories has a display probability
and wherein the display probability determines the
likelihood that a category is selected from among the set
of categories, and
selecting a first displayed media item from among
a first plurality of media items in the first category.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 8 through 19, and 22
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being unpatentable over Shepard
(US 2013/0073979 Al; Mar. 21, 2013) and Sakata (US 2014/0053105 Al;
Feb. 20, 2014). Answer 2, Final Action 2—17.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 12,
2014, Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed January 29, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-004813
Application 14/059,550
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being unpatentable over Shepard, Sakata and Weiss
(US 2012/0030135 Al; Feb. 2, 2012). Answer 2, Final Action 17—19.
ANAFYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
1 is in error as the combination of Shepard and Sakata do not teach the
limitation of “selecting a first category from among the set of categories
based on a display probability for the first category, wherein each category
in the set of categories has a display probability and wherein the display
probability determines the likelihood that a category is selected from among
the set of categories.” App Br. 5—9. Specifically, Appellants state that
Sakata, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature:
describes the “selection probability” as “a probability of being
selected by the user, for each of the categories each including
pieces of push information.” (See e.g., SAKATA 10117.) Thus,
the SAKATA “selection probability” is a probability that a user
will select a displayed category.
In contrast, claim 1 recites that the display probability
determines a likelihood that a category will be selected for
display. A probability that a category will be displayed, as
recited by claim 1, is not the same as a probability that an
already-displayed category will be selected by a user, as
disclosed by SAKATA. Thus, the SAKATA “selection
probability” cannot reasonably be construed to be the claimed
display probability, as would be required under the Examiner's
interpretation of SAKATA. Therefore, the cited portion of
SAKATA cannot reasonably disclose or suggest the above-
identified features of claim 1.
App. Br. 5—6.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer. We have reviewed the
3
Appeal 2015-004813
Application 14/059,550
Examiner’s response and the evidence cited by the Examiner. We concur
with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments.
Specifically, we note that contrary to Appellants’ argument, claim 1 does not
recite “a probability that a category will be displayed” as argued by
Appellants. Further, we see no distinction between what Appellants describe
as “the SAKATA ‘selection probability’ is a probability that a user will
select a displayed category” and the actually recited claim 1 limitation of
“display probability determines the likelihood that a category is selected
from among the set of categories.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 14 is in error for the same
reasons as claim 1 and has not provided separate arguments with respect to
the rejections of claims 2 through 10, 12 through 24, 26 and 27.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the
same reasons as claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Appellants argue that Examiner’s rejection
is in error as the combination of Shepard and Sakata do not teach the
limitation of “responsive to the determination that each of the media items in
the first plurality of media items has been previously displayed, selecting a
second category from among the set of categories.” App. Br 9-12.
Specifically, Appellants state that the cited portion of Shepard:
discloses “recommend[ing] object types [to a user] that have not
been recently displayed.” However, there is no disclosure or
suggestion of determining whether each object in a particular
object type has been displayed, as would be required under the
Examiner’s interpretation of SHEPARD. Thus, the cited portion
of SHEPARD does not disclose or suggest the claimed
determination that each of the media items in the first plurality
of media items [in a first category] has been previously
4
Appeal 2015-004813
Application 14/059,550
displayed, and does not disclose or suggest the claimed selecting
of a second category based on the determination.
App. Br 10.
The Examiner responds finding that Shepherd is concerned with
creating a recommendation engine which keeps track of object types that
have been displayed. The recommendation engine keep track of types of
objects, to diversify the types of objects presented to the user. Answer 6.
Based upon this teaching the Examiner finds that “Shepherd implicitly
teaches wherein past selections are used to determine what is ultimately
recommended.” Id. We concur, Shepard explicitly states that the system
keeps track of object types that have been displayed, and that this may be
used to recommend object types that have not been recently displayed, thus
suggesting the claimed determination that a media item has been previously
displayed, (see Shepard para. 74). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 and claim 25 grouped with claim 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5