Ex Parte MalkinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201411958195 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WAYNE MALKIN ____________________ Appeal 2012-006042 Application 11/958,195 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, 15–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 14 and 18 have been cancelled. App. Br. 5. We AFFIRM.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies International Business Machines Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on September 19, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed February 29, 2012; Examiner’s Answer mailed December 29, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed December 17, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-006042 Application 11/958,195 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Appellant’s application relates to credentialing online information providers. Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method of credentialing network-based sources of information, commentary, and opinion, the method comprising: receiving a request for recognition, the request received by a credential clearinghouse (CCH) from at least one credential-granting organization (CGO), and, in response to the request for recognition, granting recognition to the CGO if the CGO is determined by the CCH to satisfy a predetermined standard of credibility; after the CGO is granted recognition, receiving from a user entity a request for a credential granted by the CGO, and granting the credential if the user entity is determined to satisfy a predetermined set of credentialing benchmarks; and; wherein, after granting the credential, the credential is posted on a publicly-accessible data communications network site along with an object comprising at least one among information content, commentary, and opinion, the object being associated an indicator indicating the grant of the credential, and wherein the credential discloses that the user entity satisfied the predetermined set of credentialing benchmarks while maintaining personal anonymity of the user entity. Appeal 2012-006042 Application 11/958,195 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 11, and 17 over two separate combinations of references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 5–6, 8– 10, 11–13, 15. In both rejections, the Examiner relied on Query3 for disclosing the limitation reciting “wherein the credential discloses that the user entity satisfied the predetermined set of credentialing benchmarks while maintaining personal anonymity of the user entity.” Id. Appellant argues that Query does not teach a credential that maintains the personal anonymity of the user entity. App. Br. 11–16; Reply Br. 2–5. Rather, Appellant argues, Query discloses that the credentialing indicia are posted on the user’s own website, so anonymity is not maintained. App. Br. 12. Appellant further argues that Query discloses ways to identify individuals based on the credential, such as by searching a credential database. App. Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3–5. With respect to the credential indicia of Query, the Examiner found: The indicia itself does not attest to the identity of the user entity, but rather to the fact that the authenticating agency has verified the credentials of the user entity. The “indicia” is merely a “seal of approval” of the authenticating agency which serves to “confirm certification of the credentials” of the user entity. See par. 30. Ans. 18. Citing examples of exemplary seals of approval, the Examiner further found: “a seal of approval does not convey the identity of the entity to which the seal is conveyed. Instead, a seal of approval conveys 1) the identity of the certifying entity and 2) the fact of certification by the certifying entity.” Ans. 19. Query discloses: 3 Query, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0180506 A1, published Aug. 2, 2007. Appeal 2012-006042 Application 11/958,195 4 If all of the credentials with respect to which authentication has been sought are approved, the member/individual 50 is approved and provided with a notice of acceptance 56 and approval to display the authenticating agency’s approved indicia, such as a stamp, in promotional materials and other items as well as on its website to confirm certification of the credentials. Query ¶ 30. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. As noted by the Examiner, the claim requires that the claimed credential maintain personal anonymity of the user entity. Ans. 18. The claim recites that “the credential is posted on a publicly-accessible data communications network site . . . .” Thus, it is the posted credential that “maintain[s] personal anonymity of the user entity.” By contrast, Appellant argues patentability of its claims by pointing to instances in Query in which anonymity may not be maintained, such as when the indicia appears on the user’s own website. App. Br. 12. However, the claim is not so limited and only requires that the credential itself maintain personal anonymity. The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s findings that the indicia of Query maintain personal anonymity, and Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us otherwise. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 11, and 17. With respect to dependent claims 2–10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, Appellant relies on arguments made for the independent claims and does not advance additional persuasive arguments for patentability of these claims. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is sustained. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2012-006042 Application 11/958,195 5 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, 15–17, 19, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation