Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

11864859 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

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