Ex Parte Peters et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201611864859 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/864,859 09/28/2007 Keith Peters 30554 7590 03/24/2016 MAHAMEDI PARADICE LLP 1901 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 600 Campbell, CA 95008 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. ZAND.Plll 4211 EXAMINER NG, AMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2016 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): uspto@mppatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEITH PETERS and RICHARD SKRENTA Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 13-22, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Topix, LLC. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 Claimed Subject Matter The invention generally relates to a system and method for displaying content by monitoring user-generated activity. (Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method for providing content on a website, the method compnsmg: hosting a plurality of user-generated content mediums in connection with displaying a plurality of news stories by topic, so that each user-generated content medium is associated with a topic page on which the plurality of news stories are displayed; monitoring, during a given time period, a number of postings of each of the plurality of user-generated content mediums, the plurality of user generated content mediums being accessible at the website from a main page; selecting a set of user-generated content mediums from the plurality of user-generated content mediums for prominence based, at least in part, on the number of postings of each user- generated content medium in the set; and providing, on a main page of the \~1ebsite, a lirik for each user-generated content medium, the link for each user-generated content medium locating an item of the topic page on which the user-generated content medium is provided, the link to each user- generated content medium being presented so that the selected set of user-generated content mediums are displayed with prominence on the main page of the website. Rejection Claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 7,831,928 Bl, issued Nov. 9, 2010) (hereinafter "Rose"). (Final Act. 2-9.) 2 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 7-17; Reply Br. 2-12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 2--4). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13-22 Appellants argue claim 1 "makes a clear distinction between 'user- generated content mediums' and 'a plurality of news stories,"' and that Rose "at most discloses displaying 'upcoming stories in a cloud view [in which] the title of each story in the upcoming queue is visualized as a function of the number of diggs it has."' (App. Br. 8-9 (quoting Rose Abstract, 15:60---16:1 (emphasis and alteration by Appellants)).) Therefore, according to Appellants, Rose does not teach selecting a set of user- generated content mediums from the plurality of user-generated content mediums for prominence, as recited in claim 1. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments (see App. Br. 8-9). We agree with the Examiner that Rose teaches both news stories as well as user-generated content. (Ans. 2-3.) In particular, Rose teaches users submit content such as third party news stories to a website (Rose 2:40--43; Ans. 2) and the website provides a hyperlink to the news story as well as other content such as a summary of the story, the date and time it was submitted, and user interactions with the content, including "digg" interactions, "bury" 3 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 interactions, and user comments (Rose 2:57---64, 3:46-57; see Ans. 2; Final Act. 2). Figure lB of Rose shows a user is able to view "promoted stories" that have been selected because they exceed a promotion threshold, which can include user-associated metrics such as the number of "diggs" by users. (Rose 4: 11-24; see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.) Although Rose refers to these as "promoted stories," the promoted stories page is a story window that includes one or more "story entries." (Rose 3 :46-4 7.) Each story entry includes the title of the story as well as other associated content, including a link to user comments. (Rose 3:47-57.) Rose sometimes refers to the area of the site associated with a story as the story's "permalink," and teaches by clicking on the comments link of the story in the story window the user is presented with the comments portion of the permalink. (Rose 3:53-56; see Final Act. 2.) Therefore, the "promoted stories" window displays links to not only a selection of news stories that have been promoted, but also the user-generated content associated with them. "Selecting" these promoted stories thus selects not only the stories themselves, but also the user- generated content medium associated with them. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3) that Rose's "promoted stories" window teaches selecting a set of user-generated content mediums from the plurality of user-generated content mediums for prominence, as recited in claim 1. The "cloud view" referenced by Appellants is illustrated in Figure 10 of Rose, and shows an alternate view of the story pages in which the title of each story "is visualized as a function of the number of diggs it has. Stories with few diggs are shown in a very small font . . . . Stories with many diggs 4 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 are shown in a very large font .... " (Rose 15:65-16:4.) Although this view displays only the title of the news stories, there is no suggestion clicking on the title in this view takes you only to the news story, because Rose's system is generally intended to link to all content associated with the story (see Rose Abstract). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the cloud view illustrated in Figure 10 shows selection only of news stories for prominence and not the user-generated content associated with each news story. Appellants also argue "[ n Jo discussion is provided in Rose of a 'link to each user-generated content medium being presented so that the selected set of user-generated content mediums are displayed with prominence on the main page of the website,' as recited in Claim 1." (App. Br. 10.) Appellants acknowledge Rose's teaching that Figure 1 B includes a link to the comments for each story, but state "[ n Jo further discussion of the comments portion is provided by Rose." (App. Br. 11.) As discussed above, however, Figure lB shows "promoted stories," which include user- generated content mediums such as the comments associated with each story. Being selected as a promoted story to be displayed on the promoted stories page is itself a display of prominence on the main page of the website, as claim 1 requires. Indeed, such a display is strikingly similar to Appellants' "Most Popular Top Stories" page illustrated in Figure 5 of Appellants' Specification, and not inconsistent with the portions of the Specification Appellants identify in the Reply Brief as "support" for the term "main page." (See Reply Br. 9 (citing Spec. i-fi-130-32, 48).) Appellants state "Rose does not disclose the features of 'the main page' as defined in 5 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 Claim 1" (Reply Br. 9), but do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings discussed supra, with which we agree. We note also that we have rejected, as discussed supra, Appellants' argument that the cloud view of Figure 10 links only to stories and not the associated user-generated content mediums. Appellants do not argue the cloud view is not a "main page" of the website. Therefore, this portion of Rose also teaches a link to each user-generated content medium being presented so that the selected set of user-generated content mediums are displayed with prominence on the main page of the website, as recited in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rose. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5 and 9, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue independent claims 10 and 20 are patentable for similar reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 13-16), and we sustain the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims 13-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22, which are not argued separately, for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 3 and 17 Appellants argue the Examiner fails to address monitoring at least one of (i) a number of times the postings to each of the plurality of user- generated content mediums that are monitored are viewed by users, or (ii) a change in a total number of postings to each of the plurality of user- generated content mediums from one time period to another, as recited in dependent claim 3, which depends from claim 1. (App. Br. 12.) Appellants 6 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 concede "Rose may, at most, implicitly disclose 'monitoring a total number of postings' by stating that stories may be 'sort[ed] by most or least comments"' (App. Br. 12 (alteration by Appellants)), but state without persuasive explanation that this teaching does not meet either of the elements of claim 3 (id. at 12-13). We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4) that Rose's monitoring the total number of postings monitors a change in a total number of postings to each of the plurality of user-generated content mediums from one time period to another, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase. Recognition that another posting has occurred at a particular time recognizes a change in the total number of postings from the time of the previous post to the current. We are not persuaded the claim requires monitoring a "rate of change" of the number of postings (see Reply Br. 11 ), and the claim does not even state that the number of postings in one time period is compared to the number of postings in another time period. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rose, and we sustain the rejection. Appellants argue claim 17, which depends from claim 10, is patentable for similar reasons as claim 3 (App. Br. 14--15), and we sustain the rejection of claim 17 for the same reasons as claim 3. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 13-22. 7 Appeal2014-005225 Application 11/864,859 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation