Ex Parte Bhasin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2018

13932748 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/932,748 07 /01/2013 Anmol Bhasin
45839 7590 06/27/2018
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner I Linkedln/Microsoft
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
3080.052US2 5844
EXAMINER
WHITAKER, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANMOL BHASIN, CHRISTIAN POSSE, WING H. LI, and
KUN LIU
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748 1, 2
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES W. DEJMEK, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Linkedin Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 Appellants indicate the following pending application is related to the
instant application: Application No. 13/931,471 (Appeal No. 2016-003353).
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to "analyzing and
processing a variety of data for the purpose of determining and quantifying a
member's intent and a member's interests in connection with how and why
the member interacts with a social networking service." Spec. i-f 2. In a
disclosed embodiment, a score-generating module collects and uses various
member data (e.g., member profile data, social graph data, and member-
activity or behavioral data) to derive various member-intent and member
interest scores for members. Spec. i-f 8. According to the Specification, "a
member-intent score is a measure of a member's attitude or desire for certain
activities, while a member-interest score represents a more granular level of
insight into a particular intent of the member." Spec. i-f 8. After the
particular scores have been determined, they may be made available to other
services and applications that may then be personalized for the member
based on the derived scores. Spec. i-f 7. For example, based on the
member's scores, a particular content module or prioritized search results
may be presented to a member via a user interface. Spec. i-f 11.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a server over a network a request for a user interface,
the request having been invoked by a member of a social networking
service;
responsive to receiving the request, requesting a plurality of
member-intent scores comprising a combination of counts of specified
user interactions and corresponding member-interest scores for each
member-intent score, the member-interest scores comprising a
2
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
combination of the counts of the specified user interactions that relate
to a particular subject matter specified as being associated with the
particular member-intent score; and
selecting a particular content module to be presented as part of
the user interface based on a member-intent score and/or a member-
interest score exceeding a threshold value.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, and 17 stand provisionally rejected under
the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-22 of co-
pending Application No. 13/931,471. Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5---6.
3. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 6-7.
4. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wana et al. (US 2012/0290565 Al; Nov. 15, 2012)
("Wana") and Green et al. (US 2009/0240647 Al; Sept. 24, 2009)
("Green"). 3 Final Act. 8-16.
3 Appellants claim priority to provisional Application No. 61/770,628 (filed
February 28, 2013). Spec. i-f 1. AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 applies "to any patent
application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013."
MPEP § 2159.02. We leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the
rejection is more properly identified as under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
ANALYSIS 4
Rejection under doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's provisional rejection of
claims 1, 5, 11, 13, and 17 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting other than to request that the rejection "be held in abeyance."
App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellants have not filed a terminal disclaimer, nor
has the Examiner withdrawn the rejection or agreed to hold the rejection in
abeyance. See Ans. passim.
To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a
ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with
respect to that ground of rejection as waived."). Additionally, "[i]f a ground
of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer." Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
("MPEP") § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1, 5, 11, 13, and 17 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 29, 2015 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed February 8, 2016 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 9, 2015 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action, mailed May 29, 2015 ("Final Act."), from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § l l 2(a)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5-6.
The Examiner identifies the claim terms "member-intent scores" and
"member-interest scores" and finds "the scope of the claims encompasses all
techniques to attain that result ('all solutions') without describing how the
terms are functionally related." Final Act. 5---6. Additionally, the Examiner
finds the Specification fails to describe in sufficient detail how the scores are
computed. Final Act. 6; Ans. 16-17.
As an initial matter, we disagree with the Examiner that the claims
recite generating member-intent scores and member-interest scores. Final
Act. 5. Rather, the claims merely request the scores in response to receiving
a request by a user (either for a user interface or a search query).
Nonetheless, to satisfy the written description requirement, the
disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellants
possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
Specifically, the description must "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in
the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed" and
the test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an
invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
Ariad Pharms., Inc., 598 F.3d at 1351 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Additionally, the Examiner has the initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in an
5
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
applicant's disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976).
Here, we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4) that
both the claims and Specification provided adequate written description
support for the claimed member-intent and member-interest scores.
Appellants' Specification broadly describes how the intent and interest
scores may be calculated based on the combination of input data. Spec.
i-f 28. Further, the data comprising the combined score may be weighted or
subject to timing parameters such that more recent activities have a greater
impact on the determined score. Spec. i-f 28. Additionally, the claim
language recites that member intent scores "compris[ e] a combination of
counts of specified user interactions and corresponding member-interest
scores" and member-interest scores "compris[ e] a combination of the counts
of the specified user interactions that relate to a particular subject matter
specified as being associated with the particular member-intent score."
Claim 1. Although very broadly claimed, we agree with Appellants that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the intent and interest
scores are determined by combining counts of particular detected and logged
activities (e.g., user interactions with an application) and that the inventors
had possession of the claimed subject matter (i.e., the member-intent and
member-interest scores) as of the filing date.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
6
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1 OJ
Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. App.
Br. 10-24; Reply Br. 4--7. In particular, Appellants assert the Examiner
failed to make an evidentiary showing to establish a prima facie case of
ineligibility. App. Br. 10-15. Further, Appellants argue the claims are not
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, but rather "to a particular
technical solution for providing a custom user interface based on a user's
network activities." App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 4--6.
Contrary to Appellants' assertions, neither Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), nor the Board's holdings in PNC Bankv.
Secure Axcess, LLC, Case No. CBM2014-00100 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2014) or Ex
Parte Renald Poisson, Appeal No. 2010-011084 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2015),
stand for the proposition that Examiners must provide evidentiary support in
every case before a conclusion can be made that a claim is directed to an
abstract idea. There is no such requirement. See, e.g., para. IV "July 2015
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" to 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject
Matter Eligibility (2014 IEG), 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014) ("The
courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible (which
involves identifying whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being
claimed) to be a question of law. Accordingly, courts do not rely on
evidence that a claimed concept is a judicial exception, and in most cases
resolve the ultimate legal conclusion on eligibility without making any
factual findings.") (emphasis added). Further, the Office did not change the
standard in the May 4, 2016 Memorandum, Formulating a Subject Matter
Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant's Response to a Subject
7
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
Matter Eligibility Rejection. Evidence may be helpful in certain situations
where, for instance, facts are in dispute. However, it is not always
necessary. It is not necessary in this case.
Additionally, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima
facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of
the burden of production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing Jn re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The
court has, thus, held that the USPTO carries its procedural burden when its
rejection satisfies the requirements of 3 5 U.S. C. § 13 2 by notifying the
applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of [the] application." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ). Thus, all that is required of the Office is that it set forth the statutory
basis of the rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to
meet the notice requirement of§ 132. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362; see also
Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Section 132 "is
violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant
from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection."). As set
forth in the Final Office Action, the Examiner has met the notice
requirements of Section 132 in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
See Final Act. 6-7.
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If a
claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) then the first
inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized
8
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If so, the second step is to determine whether any
element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the
judicial exception. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
Although the independent claims each broadly fall within the statutory
categories of patentability, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to
a judicially recognized exception-i.e., an abstract idea. Final Act. 6-7. In
particular, the Examiner concludes the claims recite a series of steps for
quantifying the intents and interests of users of a social network by
analyzing profile and activity data to derive a score, "which is considered to
be a mathematical relationship or formula and thus directed to an abstract
idea." Final Act. 6. More particularly, the Examiner finds the mathematical
relationships (represented by the scores) are used to generate additional
information in the form of a content module or search results, concepts
which the Examiner concludes are similar to "organizing information
through mathematical correlations." Final Act. 7.
Instead of using a definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841F.3d1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); accord United
States Patent and Trademark Office, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility (July 30, 2015), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed
concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one
9
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea"). As part of this
inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded
subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas include the
concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data
set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d
1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection,
storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea").
Additionally, the collection of information and analysis of information (e.g.,
recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also abstract ideas. Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP
Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Fed. Cir.
May 15, 2018) ("merely presenting the results of abstract processes of
collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of
such collection and analysis") (quotations omitted). Further in Intellectual
Ventures, the court concluded, "customizing information and presenting it to
users based on particular characteristics" is an abstract idea. Intellectual
Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1340 (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
10
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., 855
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to
another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas).
Here, Appellants' claims are directed to using determined member-
intent and member-interest scores to customize information presented to a
user (e.g., a content module or search results) via a user interface. The
tailoring (i.e., customizing) of information to be presented to a user is a
fundamental practice long prevalent in practice. Capital One Bank, 792
F.3d at 1369 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356); see also Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elec.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(concluding "a process of organizing information through mathematical
correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine" to be abstract).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the
abstract idea of selecting a particular content module or prioritizing search
results based on member-intent and member-interest scores, which is
organizing information using mathematical correlations. See Final Act. 6-7;
Ans. 18.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellants that the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology and overcomes a problem arising
in the realm of computer networks. See App. Br. 21-22 (referring to DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Customizing information presented to a user is not a problem unique to the
11
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
realm of computer networks. See Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1369-70.
"[T]argeted advertising is [a well-known] concept, insofar as matching
consumers with a given product or service 'has been practiced as long as
markets have been in operation."' Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d
1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV 13-1771-RGA,
2014 WL 4382446, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014)). In other words, "[t]he
concept of gathering information about one's intended market and
attempting to customize the information then provided is as old as the
saying, 'know your audience."' Morsa, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 1013 (quoting
OpenTV, Inc. v. Netjlix Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 886, 893 (N.D. Cal. 2014)).
Appellants do not present sufficient persuasive evidence or argument that
the claims are directed to an improvement specific to a computer network.
See App. Br. 21-22. Rather, the focus of the claims is on the presentation of
particular content module or search results based on collected data (i.e.,
member-intent scores and member-interest scores) using generic computers
and networks as tools, not on improvements in the computer. See Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2359.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-80 (2012)). The
implementation of the abstract idea involved must be "more than [the]
performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities
12
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
previously known to the industry.'" Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347-
48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359) (alteration in original). "Whether
something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan
at the time of the patent is a factual determination." Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881F.3d1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations,
separately, or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful
limitations (i.e., do not add significantly more) sufficient to transform the
abstract idea into a patent eligible application. Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 18-21.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, a server (i.e., computer) presenting a
particular content module or a search engine service presenting customized
search results based on a mathematical relationship of user activities (i.e.,
member-intent and member interest scores) via a user interface merely uses
generic computer elements to perform "purely generic computer functions."
Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 20-21. "That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network-with no further specification-is not even
arguably inventive." See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Additionally, we note that Appellants describe the
machine to perform the claimed embodiments as being either a server
computer, personal computer, a tablet PC, "or any machine capable of
executing instructions ... that specify actions to be taken by that machine."
Spec. i-f 34, Fig. 5 (illustrating a block diagram of a generic computing
platform). Accordingly, we do not find that the claims recite "significantly
more" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
13
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
Appellants also contend the pending claims would not preempt
quantifying the intent and interests of users of a social network. App.
Br. 17-18, 22-23.
"' [W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.'"
Fair Warning IP, 839 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat
the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract."). Further, "[ w ]here a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose
patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa,
788 F.3d at 1379; see also Ans. 19-20.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For similar reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6, 8-
12, 14--16, and 18-20, which depend therefrom and were not argued
separately. See App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 7; and 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 1 7, the Examiner relies
on the combined teachings and suggestions of Wana and Green. Final
Act. 8-11. In particular, the Examiner finds Wana teaches the claimed
14
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
member-interest scores and Green teaches the claimed member-intent
scores. Final Act. 8-11 (citing Wana i-fi-f 15, 64, 75-77, 80; Green i-fi-130, 80-
121, 242-243, and 356).
Appellants assert that, as recited in the claims, the member-interest
scores are based on "specified user interactions that relate to a particular
subject matter specified as being associated with the particular member-
intent score." App. Br. 25-28; see claim 1. Appellants note the Examiner
stated that Wana fails to teach a plurality of member-intent scores. App.
Br. 26. Because Wana does not teach member-intent scores, Appellants
argue Wana also fails to teach member-interest scores which are based on
and associated with member-intent scores. App. Br. 26-27.
In response, the Examiner explains:
The Wana reference discusses the sub-scores, which are
read as the member-intent scores, which are then used in Green's
behavioral modeler algorithm to calculate a confidence scores
which are read as the member interest scores; not the master
score of Wana as Appellants state.
Ans. 21. Thus, the Examiner seems to rely on Wana to teach the claimed
member-intent scores and Green to teach the member-interest scores.
However, as the Examiner further explains, the sub-scores of Wana "have
been broadly interpreted ... as the interest scores for a member or user."
Ans. 21 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner "has broadly
interpreted ... the confidence score generated by Green's behavior modeler
algorithm as a member's intent score." Ans. 21 (emphasis added).
The Examiner's findings and explanations are inconsistent regarding
which reference is being relied upon to teach the claimed member-intent
scores and member-interest scores. For us to sustain the Examiner's
rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or
15
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
unfounded assumptions or rationales to cure the deficiencies in the factual
bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). We decline to do so.
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 7, 13, and 17, which recite similar
limitations and for which the Examiner relies on similar findings and
reasoning. See Final Act. 8-11. Additionally, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2---6, 8-12, 14--16, and 18-20, which depend
therefrom.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner's decision provisionally rejecting
claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
16
Appeal2016-003355
Application 13/932,748
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
17