Ex Parte Nixon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

12889060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
12/889,060 09/23/2010 Mark Nixon 20040/59-12333 5617
34431 7590 10/26/2017
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LODHI, ANDALIB FT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
mailroom @ hfzlaw. com
j flight @ hfzlaw. com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK NIXON, ERIC ROTVOLD, and JEFF POTTER
Appeal 2015-003078
Application 12/889,060
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 17, 2017, Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing (
“Request”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision on Appeal
(“Decision”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), mailed August
17, 2017. In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—5, 7—18, 21, and 22, and reversed the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 6.
We deny the Request.
In the Request, Appellants argue the Decision misapprehended the
teachings of Fables. (Request 3—7.) Appellants also argue the Board “may
be construing the phrases ‘filter results of a search’ and ‘filtering results of a
search’ in an unreasonably broad manner.” (Request 7—9.)
Appeal 2015-003078
Application 12/889,060
In particular, Appellants argue the finding that the “[Influences” of
Fables are used to filter the results of a search is a “mistake of fact.”
(Request 3.) (Emphasis omitted). For example, Appellants argue it is error
to rely on the disclosure in Fables of Influences used to control whether
advertisements are included in the next display. (Decision 4; Fables 1159.)
Appellants argue:
Fables does not mention an advertisement included in the search
results nor does Fables mention the influences affecting the
search results in any way. Instead, the advertisements are
mentioned as accompanying the next display that ends the
browsing session where no search results are ever mentioned
being included. Id. 1 [0159]; 1 [0160].
(Request 5.) (Emphasis omitted). Appellants mischaracterize Fables. When
Fables states that a particular “display” includes an item, such as an
advertisement, it is explicitly referring to the display of search results. For
example:
The Search Results may be filtered or limited in accordance with
predetermined parameters, indicated by the Select & Filter
function 9, such as random selection of a limited number of
results per search query, relevancy ranking, etc. A Display 11 is
then generated to display the Search Results as a new index of
choices to the user. The Display 11 is generated in accordance
with predetermined parameters of a Publish & Influence function
10, which can parse the search results, influence the calculation
of which search results to accept, and add other content, static
elements, ads, etc.
(Fables 129.) (Emphasis added.)
Influences are assignments per word, dynamic or fixed, that
accumulate in the User Profile, by sum, replacement or
immediate action as the words they are attached to are added to
the indexed associative list. Influences are items that can have
various tags/triggers attached and can be added, combined and
2
Appeal 2015-003078
Application 12/889,060
processed to control display or profiling variables, and or trigger
other processes.
(Fables 132.) (Emphasis added.)
The objects returned from the search are presented to the user as
a new display of choices.
(Fables 139.) (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, Appellants’ reference to Fables’ mention of the user
discontinuing the browsing session is a red herring. (Fables 1159.) That
step is simply the last step in a detailed description, titled “Keyword
Example of the Personal Word Map Building Sequence,” of how a user
navigates through the operation of the search procedure of Fables. (See Tflf
49—161.) The user ending the browsing session after displaying the search
results including vacation package advertisements is of no relevance to the
issues here.
Nor does the decision rely on an overbroad interpretation of “filter
results of a search” and “filtering results of a search.” Appellants argue,
“[n]o one of ordinary skill in the art would confuse and/or interpret the
phrases ‘filter results of a search’ and ‘filtering results of a search’ to be the
Influences of Fables that affect whether an advertisement is displayed
following the selection of one of the previously filtered and displayed
search results.” (Request 9.) Again, this mischaracterizes the operation of
Fables. As discussed, the relied-on example of the operation of an
“Influence” causes the next display of search results to include an
advertisement. Thus, the presence or absence of an Influence determines
whether or not the search results include additional information. Under a
3
Appeal 2015-003078
Application 12/889,060
broad but reasonable interpretation, this operation satisfies the claim
requirements of filtering results of a search.
In summary, having fully considered the arguments in the Request, on
this record, we are not persuaded that we have misapprehended or
overlooked any points raised by Appellants. We find none of Appellants’
arguments are persuasive that our Decision was in error. We have
reconsidered our Decision, but decline to grant the relief requested.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have granted Appellants’
Request to the extent that we have reconsidered the original Decision but
have denied it with respect to making any changes to the Decision.
REHEARING DENIED
4