GAIASOFT IP LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2020

2019002651 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2020)

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.
13/706,201 12/05/2012 Clive Morel Fourman 12222.0003-00000 4787
22852 7590 06/25/2020
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2020 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIVE MOREL FOURMAN
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–27. Claims 6 and 7 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, the real party is “GAIASOFT IP
Limited.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention delivers online content. Spec. ¶ 1. According to
the Specification, a user must disclose more information to “get the most out
of the Internet,” but in doing so, the user risks compromising their privacy.
Id. ¶ 2. The invention sets out to maximize relevance and usefulness of
content retrieval while maintaining the user’s privacy. Id.
Specifically, the invention collects information about a person
including identity, location, observations, definitions, recommendations,
intentions, objectives, projects, actions, maturity levels, risks, blog entries,
wiki entries, documents, and many other things. See id. ¶¶ 22–26. The
invention uses a central profile database (CPD) to store a person’s identity-
context-location (ICL) data. Id. ¶ 63. The CPD can be used, for example, to
improve the quality of information that an employee receives from their
employer’s communications department and generally from a corporate
portal. Id. ¶ 67. But the employee’s ICL may be kept private—i.e., the
employer does not have access to the ICL itself. Id. ¶ 68. In this way,
content delivery is purportedly improved by using confidential information
while the employee’s privacy is maintained. Id.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
with emphasis on the limitation at issue.
1. An online content delivery system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory storing instructions executed by the at least
one processor to:
store user information, wherein the stored user
information includes profile information;
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
3
transmit a token to a first device for use in a content
delivery requirement software application running on the first
device in response to an online request for content;
and
simultaneously with transmitting the token, communicate,
over an electronic network to a content intermediary device
distinct from the first device, the token and the stored user
information,
wherein the content intermediary device is configured to
match the token,
wherein the request for content identifies a user to a
trusted holder of profile data, and
wherein the stored user information is formed from a
profile analysis resulting in one or more profile elements
consisting of a continuous or discrete rating in one or more
dimensions and enables the content intermediary device to
source dynamically constructed content from a source of
content and deliver, based on the one or more profile elements,
the dynamically constructed content to the user via a
communications device.
Appeal Br. 39 (emphasis added).2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed October 11, 2018; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed
December 21, 2018; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed January 14,
2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed February 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the references in the table below.
Name Reference Date
Hagan US 2001/0054155 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Bindler US 2003/0059750 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Cahill US 2005/0076248 A1 April 7, 2005
La Rotonda US 2006/0184997 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
Brubaker US 2007/0112762 A1 May 17, 2007

REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 8–264 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cahill, Brubaker, and La Rotonda. Final 12–23.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Cahill, Brubaker, La Rotonda, and Bindler. Final 23–24.
The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Cahill, Brubaker, La Rotonda, and Hagan. Final 24–25.
OPINION
Obviousness over Cahill, Brubaker, and La Rotonda
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cahill
teaches or suggests all limitations except for (1) the recited dynamically
constructed content and (2) the limitations to transmitting the token.
Final 12–16. As for the recited token, the Examiner turns to La Rotonda.

3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Ans. 3.
4 The Examiner omits claim 26 from the rejection’s heading but analyzes
that claim in the substantive part of the rejection. Final 12 (heading), 23
(substantive rejection).
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
5
Id. at 15. In particular, the Examiner finds that La Rotonda’s encrypted URL
corresponds to the recited token. Id.
Appellant’s Argument
Appellant argues that La Rotonda does not teach or suggest
transmitting a token to two devices simultaneously. Appeal Br. 30.
Appellant makes other arguments, but we do not reach them because we find
this argument persuasive.
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part, “simultaneously with transmitting the token,
communicate, over an electronic network to a content intermediary device
distinct from the first device, the token and the stored user information.”
Appeal Br. 39. Under the Examiner’s construction, this limitation does not
require “a device transmitting the same token to two devices.” Ans. 5. We
disagree.
Claim 1 recites two devices that receive the token: “a first device” and
“a content intermediary device.” Appeal Br. 39. Claim 1 requires that the
processor “transmit a token to a first device.” Id. (emphasis added). Claim 1
further recites transmitting the same token to the second device—i.e.,
“simultaneously with transmitting the token, communicate . . . to a content
intermediary device . . . the token.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, the token
transmitted to the first device is the antecedent basis for “the token”
communicated to the content intermediary device. So the second
transmission is simultaneous with the first and involves the same token sent
to a different device.5

5 Claim 1 recites a transmission and a communication over a network. Here,
communication over a network must involve at least some form
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
6
Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not shown that La Rotonda
simultaneously transmits the same token to two devices. Id. at 30. We agree.
La Rotonda’s Figure 5, reproduced below, shows a system for an inviter to
send an invitation for sharing content to an invitee. La Rotonda ¶ 44.

Figure 5, above, shows inviter client 102a and invitee client 102b
communicating through network 105 to server 108a. Id. Server 108a
manages authentication. Id.

transmission. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 61 (discussing network communications via
the Internet).
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
7
La Rotonda uses tokens to identify an invitation from an authenticated
inviter. Id. ¶ 40. The token can be a URL. Id. The invitee can access the
content with the URL even if the invitee is not authenticated. Id. Some
embodiments decrypt an encrypted URL to determine whether the invitation
is still valid. Id. ¶ 46.
The Examiner finds that invitee client 102b corresponds to the recited
first device and server 108a corresponds to the content intermediary device.
Final 14–15 (citing La Rotonda ¶¶ 40, 46, 47). But the Examiner has not
shown that La Rotonda transmits the same token simultaneously to invitee
client 102b and server 108a. See Appeal Br. 30.
Rather, server 108a sends a token to the invitee, and the invitee later
sends a token to server 108a. See La Rotonda ¶ 47. In particular, to send an
invitation to the invitee, the inviter sends a request to server 108a. Id. Server
108a generates a token. Id. The token allows access to the inviter’s content.
Id. Server 108a then sends the invitation, including the token, to the
invitee—i.e., a first token transmission. Id. ¶¶ 47, 50. After receiving the
invitation, the invitee selects a preview link to view the inviter’s content.
Id. ¶ 47. This selection sends the token to server 108a—i.e., a second token
transmission. Id. ¶¶ 46, 47. Thus, La Rotonda’s two token transmissions are
sequential, not simultaneous as required by claim 1.
In this way, the Examiner erred in finding that La Rotonda teaches or
suggests “simultaneously with transmitting the token, communicate, over an
electronic network to a content intermediary device distinct from the first
device, the token and the stored user information.” Because this issue is
dispositive of the rejection’s error, we need not address Appellant’s other
arguments.
Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
8
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and independent
claims 18 and 20, which also recite the simultaneous token transmission. For
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–4,
8–17, 19, and 21–26.
Obviousness over Cahill, Brubaker, La Rotonda, and Bindler
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner cites Bindler for the limited
purpose of showing that the recited compiled information was known. Final
23–24. Because the Examiner has not shown that Bindler cures the above-
noted deficiencies, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
5.
Obviousness over Cahill, Brubaker, La Rotonda, and Hagan
In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner cites Hagan for the limited
purpose of showing that the recited random-valued token was known. Final
24–25. Because the Examiner has not shown that Hagan cures the above-
noted deficiencies, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
27.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–27 is reversed.

Appeal 2019-002651
Application 13/706,201
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–25 103 Cahill, Brubaker, La
Rotonda
1–4, 8–26
5 103 Cahill, Brubaker, La
Rotonda, Bindler
5
27 103 Cahill, Brubaker, La
Rotonda, Hagan
27
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8–27

REVERSED