Ex Parte Farraro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2014

12638897 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC J. FARRARO, JOHN TAPLEY,
and WEI DIANA CHIANG
____________

Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-20 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system and method
of allowing an end-user to select fashion accessories in an electronic
marketplace (Spec. [0002]). Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A network architecture to retrieve information related to
marketplace items within an electronic environment, the network
architecture comprising:
a listing module to store the information related to the
marketplace items, the information including one or more user-created
items, the one or more user-created items including an
image of a model with one or more tagged items, each of the one or
more tagged items having associated descriptive metadata;
a communications module to receive a query from an end-user;
a query engine coupled to the communications module, the
query engine using one or more processors to match constraints
contained within the query to the associated descriptive metadata of
the one or more tagged items in the listing module; and
a processing module to display to the end-user the model and the
one or more tagged items.

Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897

3
14. A method to retrieve information related to marketplace items
within an electronic environment, the method comprising:
storing the information related to the marketplace items, the
information including one or more user-created items, the one or more
user-created items including an image of a model with one or more
tagged items, each of the one or more tagged items having associated
descriptive metadata;
receiving a query from an end-user;
querying the stored information, using one or more processors,
to match constraints contained within the query to the associated
descriptive metadata of the one or more tagged items; and
displaying to the end-user the model and the one or more
tagged items.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oh (US 2008/0222262 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2008) and
Nordmark (US 2007/0271146 A1, pub. Nov. 22, 2007).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are
supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is improper because the claim is “tied to one or more processors” (Br.
16-17). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record
is proper (Ans. 4-5, 8-10).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the claim is largely directed to an
abstract idea of storing information, receiving a query, and performing the
query. Here, in the claim the recitation to “using one or more processors”
and the “displaying” step are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Note that in the claim that the content of the information is non-descriptive
functional material that does not change how the underlying substrate
operates. Claim 14 is broad enough for the storing and querying steps to be
performed in a series of mental steps. For these reasons the rejection of
claim 14, and claims 15-18 which were not separately argued, is sustained.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim
limitations for:
[a] listing module to store the information related to the
marketplace items, the information including one or more
user-created items, the one or more user-created items including an
image of a model with one or more tagged items, each of the one
or more tagged items having associated descriptive metadata;

a communications module to receive a query from an end-user;
[and]

Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897

5
a query engine coupled to the communications module, the query
engine using one or more processors to match constraints
contained within the query to the associated descriptive metadata
of the one or more tagged items in the listing module.
(Br. 18). The Appellants have specifically argued that the prior art fails to
disclose those items as highlighted in bold above (Br. 18-20). In contrast,
the Examiner has determined that those cited claim limitations are found in
the prior art (Ans. 6-7, 10-14).
The Appellants first argue that the “user-created items” are not found
in the prior art (Br. 18-19). This claim limitation has been shown in the
prior art as noted by the Examiner by Oh at paragraphs [0018] and [0019].
Oh at paragraph [0019] discloses fashions created by a user using an avatar
wearing a variety of fashion items.
The Appellants have also argued that the claim limitation for tagged
items having “associated descriptive metadata” is not shown. However, Oh
at paragraph [0020] discloses that information is stored for a variety of the
fashion items such as apparel and accessories and this information serves as
the claimed “metadata.”
The Appellants also argue that the prior art fails to show a “query
from an end-user” and “match[ing] constraints contained within the query to
the associated descriptive metadata of the one or more tagged items in the
listing module”. However, these elements are shown by Oh’s “information”
which serves as “metadata”, and Nordmark at paragraph [0044] where a
shopper can select product types and categories and narrow down the search
for relevant products which would serve as a “query.” Further, the search
function shown by Nordmark at paragraph [0044] serves to “match
constraints” when the search is performed. Note that while the claim does
Appeal 2011-012695
Application 12/638,897

6
refer to both a “user” and “end-user” the claim is broad enough to allow the
“user” to be the “end-user” as well. Appellants’ arguments attack references
individually, when the rejections are over a combination of references. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references”). Here, the modification
of the system of Oh to be extended as taught by Nordmark would have been
an obvious, predictable, modification to increase sales to customers as set
forth in the rejection of record. As the cited claim limitations have been
shown in the prior art of record and the combination would have been
obvious, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants have provided
the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these
claims is sustained for these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

mls