2019004257 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2020)

AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 22, 2020

2019004257 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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. 14/959,498 12/04/2015 Narayanan Ramanathan 0202.0073 8347 129628 7590 10/22/2020 MH2 Technology Law Group LLP (Avigilon) Timothy Bradley Donaldson 1951 Kidwell Drive Suite 310 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2020 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): docketing@mh2law.com swilliams@mh2law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte NARAYANAN RAMANATHAN ________________ Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avigilon Fortress Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to predicting social media trends using multiple sets of social media data from which labels can be extracted such that “graph metric scores of a node across multiple sets of social media data can be used to predict that the label corresponding to the node . . . will begin trending.” Abstract. Representative Claim (Key Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added) 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a set of social media data comprising a plurality of entries, wherein each entry of the plurality of entries is associated with a user identifier; extracting, using one or more processors, a plurality of labels from the set of social media data; generating a social media data graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes corresponds to one of a unique label of the plurality of labels or a user identifier associated with an entry of the plurality of entries; and each edge of the plurality of edges corresponds to a co- occurrence, in a single entry of the plurality of entries, of two labels of the plurality of labels or a label of the plurality of labels and a user identifier; determining a graph metric score of a node, of the plurality of nodes, corresponding to a label; and [1] predicting that the label will begin trending [2] based on the graph metric score of the node corresponding to the label. THE EXAMINER’S REJECTION AND CITED REFERENCES The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Spivack et al. (US 2016/0094646 A1; published Mar. 31, Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 3 2016) (“Spivack”) and Chakrabarti et al. (US 2015/0213370 A1; published July 30, 2015) (“Chakrabarti”). Final Act. 7–13. ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Spivack’s use of analytics and statistics to predict upcoming trends to suggest recitation [1], “predicting that [a] label will begin trending.” Final Act. 8 (citing Spivack ¶ 39); Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges, “Spivack does not specifically disclose determining a graph metric score of a node, of the plurality of nodes, corresponding to a label.” Final Act. 8. Thus, the Examiner relies on Chakrabarti’s label inference teachings to suggest recitation [2], “based on the graph metric score of the node corresponding to the label.” Id. at 9 (citing Chakrabarti ¶¶ 20, 38); Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Spivack and Chakrabarti “to apply the metric score used to rank the label to predict the trend of the label” by identifying “the most pertinent label.” Ans. 4. With respect to recitation [1], Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “‘predicting’ should be [construed as] ‘making a calculated Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 4 determination that something is going to or is likely to occur in the future.’” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Spec. ¶ 38). Appellant argues “the word ‘predict’ as it is used in Spivack does not have the same meaning as the ‘predicting’ required by Appellant’s claim in the sense that there is no making of any mathematical calculation supporting a likelihood of some future occurrence.” Id. (citing Spivack ¶ 67). Recitation [1], however, does not recite how the claimed prediction is made. Moreover, the Specification merely provides imprecise examples of how to predict trends. Spec. ¶ 38 (examples for determining whether a node “is likely to trend, will soon trend, is beginning to trend, is trending, etc.,” by identifying anomalies in a series of scores or by identifying an anomalous rapid increase in a score). Furthermore, Appellant’s argument does not persuasively distinguish the claimed predicting from Spivack’s use of “analytics/statistics” or “statistics or any qualitative data computed as a function of time in a given time period or in real time.” Spivak ¶¶ 39, 67. In particular, Spivack teaches that a trend’s strength can “be computed by performing quantitative analysis” (id. ¶ 71 (emphasis added)) and that “trending can be performed computing momentum, or a score for a keyword, phrase or any combination of words” (id. ¶ 232 (emphasis added)). Thus, even if the claimed predicting requires making a calculated determination that something is going to or is likely to occur in the future as Appellant posits, Spivack’s computing teachings fall within a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the claimed predicting. Appellant further argues that “the ‘potential’ or ‘upcoming’ trends of Spivack do not extend beyond the analysis framework of the actual and the Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 5 current (namely what is already popular or is already trending).” Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellant, “Spivack at most discloses detecting existing trends.” Id. Spivack, however, explicitly teaches predicting “upcoming trends,” rather than merely identifying already existing trends. Spivack ¶¶ 39, 67. And Spivack specifically teaches that “[c]hanges in trends can also be determined, the strength of a given trend (e.g., how rapidly some topic/concept is becoming popular) can also be computed” (id. ¶ 71 (emphasis added)) and that “trending can be performed computing or generating momentum . . . for a keyword, phrase or any combination of words” (id. ¶ 232 (emphasis added)). Thus, even if Spivack teaches identifying what is currently popular, as Appellant argues, Spivack also teaches identifying what will become even more popular in the future (i.e., what has momentum). For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s reliance on Spivack to teach or suggestion recitation [1] of claim 1. With respect to recitation [2] of claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on Chakrabarti because the graph metric scores of Chakrabarti “cannot be used to ‘predict upcoming trends.’” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner, however, relies on Spivack, not Chakrabarti, to teach or suggest such prediction. Final Act. 8. The Examiner relies on Chakrabarti to suggest modifying Spivack to include label ranking as part of the prediction “to identify the most pertinent label.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues Chakrabarti’s graph metric scores “are used for a totally different purpose, relating to inferring user attributes, such as a Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 6 probability that a user has a particular hometown.” Id. But Chakrabarti teaches a label inference system that “is particularly important for social networks.” Chakrabarti ¶ 20 (cited in Final Act. 9). Chakrabarti teaches that “inference process instance 208 can compute probability scores associated with possible attribute labels.” Id. ¶ 38 (cited in Final Act. 9). These teachings support the Examiner’s finding that Chakrabarti teaches a probability score that “can be used to rank [a] label.” Ans. 4 (citing Chakrabarti ¶ 38). These teachings also support the Examiner’s finding that Chakrabarti’s graph metric scores can be used “to identify the most pertinent label” for a prediction. Ans. 4. Appellant further argues the Examiner “failed to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the inference system of Chakrabarti to arrive at the claimed graph metric score for predicting upcoming trends” because “there is no reason for one of ordinary skill to wish to infer geolocation based on a connected attribute.” Appeal Br. 15. This argument, however, only addresses the Examiner’s proffered reason in the Final Action for showing it would have been obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Spivack and Chakrabarti. Final Act. 9. Appellant fails to rebut the Examiner’s additional reasoning set forth in the Answer. Ans. 4. Furthermore, the Examiner’s unrebutted reasons for why it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Spivack and Chakrabarti in the manner of claim are reasonable and have a rational underpinning (i.e., that identifying the most pertinent label “can mostly be identified by ranking the label”). Ans. 4. Appeal 2019-004257 Application 14/959,498 7 For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Chakrabarti suggests modifying Spivack to include the recitations of recitation [2] of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–20, which Appellant does not argue separately.2 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Spivack, Chakrabarti 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 The Examiner previously rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3–6. In response to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9–13), the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, without particular explanation (Ans. 3). Because we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1–20, we do not decide whether withdrawal of the patent-eligibility rejection was warranted.