Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2018

12877740 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/877,740 09/08/2010
69316 7590 09/10/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jared A. Brown
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.
330183.01 3764
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,LEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARED A. BROWN, MONICA ESTELA GONZALEZ VERON,
JANNES PAUL PETERS, ADAME. BARRUS, ALBERT SHEN,
MICHAEL R. DUCKER, GOKUL P. THIRUMALAI,
RYAN M. HANING, and KAREN L. DA VIS
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877, 7 40
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9--15, and 17-20. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 16 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to notifying social network users of
posted content. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method performed on a client device, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by the client device from a social network
service in response to communications with the social network
service, notifications that each include content that was posted
by a first originator on the social network service during the
corresponding communication in relation to previously-posted
content, each received notification further including a first
identifier of the first originator of the posted content and a
second identifier of a second originator of the previously-posted
content;
filtering out, by the client device from among the received
notifications, any of the received notifications [that] do not
involve interaction by a user of the client device, where the
filtering out results in remaining notifications; and
displaying, by the client device, at least one of the
remaznzng notifications including, for each displayed
notification, the posted content, the previously-posted content,
the first identifier, and the second identifier [] of the each
displayed notification, where each displayed notification is
configured to enable the user of the client device to respond to
the corresponding communication without navigating to the
social network service.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Huang (US 2011/0161987 Al; June 30, 2011),
Herf (US 2005/0021624 Al; Jan. 27, 2005), Vendrow (US 2011/0177797
Al; July 21, 2011), and Armstrong (US 2012/0066340 Al; Mar. 15, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-10)
that the combination of Huang, Herf, Vendrow, and Armstrong would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"notifications that each include content that was posted by a first originator
on the social network service during the corresponding communication in
relation to previously-posted content."
The Examiner found that Figure 4 of Huang, which illustrates a screen
shot of a notification email, corresponds to the limitation "notifications that
each include content that was posted by a first originator on the social
network service during the corresponding communication in relation to
previously posted content." (Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 8.) We agree
with the Examiner's findings.
Huang relates to social networking, in particular, "managing
notifications provided to a user of events occurring in a social networking
system that relate to the user." (i-f 1.) Figure 4 of Huang illustrates a "screen
shot of a notification email on a web page of an email program." (i-f 15.) In
particular, Figure 4 of Huang illustrates a "Yahoo! Mail" webpage, with a
notification from "Facebook " and the
following text: "Melissa wrote on your Wall: 'Great pictures of your travels
... LUCKY!"' Because Figure 4 of Huang illustrates an email from
Facebook that "Melissa wrote on your Wall" in reference to an original
posting of travel pictures, Huang teaches the limitation "notifications that
each include content that was posted by a first originator on the social
network service during the corresponding communication in relation to
previously posted content."
3
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
Appellants argue that "paragraphs [70 and 71 of Huang] fail to
disclose a client device receiving notifications that include content posted by
an originator in relation to previously-posted content ... because, while the
log may include content (objects), there is no disclosure of notifications that
include content." (App. Br. 9 ( emphases omitted).) Similarly, Appellants
argue that "other than suggesting that a client device receives such
notifications, nothing in the cited paragraph [77 of Huang] discloses a client
device receiving notifications that include content posted by an originator in
relation to previously posted content, as encompassed by claim 1." (Id.
(emphases omitted).) However, the Examiner also cited to Figure 4 of
Huang, which is discussed in paragraph 77, and Appellants have not
presented any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner's
findings with respect to Figure 4 of Huang are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Huang,
Herf, Vendrow, and Armstrong teaches the limitation "notifications that
each include content that was posted by a first originator on the social
network service during the corresponding communication in relation to
previously-posted content."
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-
12; see also Reply Br. 11-12) that the combination of Huang, Herf,
Vendrow, and Armstrong would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation "each received notification further
including a first identifier of the first originator of the posted content and a
second identifier of a second originator of the previously-posted content."
The Examiner found that the "chat history" of Herf, in which an
identity is associated with a particular statement, corresponds to the
4
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
limitation "each received notification further including a first identifier of
the first originator of the posted content and a second identifier of a second
originator of the previously-posted content." (Final Act. 3.) We agree with
the Examiner's findings.
Herf relates to "sharing images and chat text over a network."
(Abstract.) In particular, Herf explains that "a 'chat history' ... often refers
to a list of comments typed remotely by two or more networked users,
interleaved in the order the comments have been typed" such that "[ t ]he chat
history can be displayed on each participating user's terminal display, and
typically includes some mechanism to identify which user made a particular
statement and at what time relative to other (user(s)'s) statements." (i-f 24.)
Because Herf explains that the chat history includes mechanisms to identify
multiple users, Herf teaches the limitation "each received notification further
including a first identifier of the first originator of the posted content and a
second identifier of a second originator of the previously-posted content."
Appellants argue that "[ t ]hese citations [ from Huang] actually teach
user searches ... but fail to disclose a client device receiving notifications
that also include a first identifier of the first originator of the posted content
and a second identifier of a second originator of the previously-posted
content" and "a detailed search reveals that Armstrong fails to disclose a
client device receiving notifications that also include a first identifier of the
first originator of the posted content and a second identifier of a second
originator of the previously-posted content." (App. Br. 11 (emphases
omitted); see also Reply Br. 11-12.) However, the Examiner cited to Herf,
rather than Huang or Armstrong, for teaching the limitation "each received
notification further including a first identifier of the first originator of the
5
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
posted content and a second identifier of a second originator of the
previously-posted content." (Final Act. 3.) In the part of the Final Action
cited by Appellants (App. Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 4)), the Examiner is
relying on Armstrong for teaching "filtering out" and "displaying," not for
teaching "each received notification further including a first identifier of the
first originator of the posted content and a second identifier of a second
originator of the previously-posted content." Appellants have not provided
any evidence or arguments as to why the Examiner's findings with respect to
Herf are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Huang,
Herf, Vendrow, and Armstrong teaches the limitation "each received
notification further including a first identifier of the first originator of the
posted content and a second identifier of a second originator of the
previously-posted content."
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-8;
see also Reply Br. 8-9) that the combination of Huang, Herf, Vendrow, and
Armstrong would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "filtering out, by the client device from among the
received notifications, any of the received notifications [that] do not involve
interaction by a user of the client device, where the filtering out results in
remaining notifications."
The Examiner found that the automatic notification of Armstrong,
which identifies recent content publication activity related to a search,
corresponds to the limitation "filtering out, by the client device from among
the received notifications, any of the received notifications [that] do not
involve interaction by a user of the client device, where the filtering out
6
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
results in remaining notifications." (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 7-8.) We
agree with the Examiner's findings.
Figure 11 of Armstrong illustrates communications system 1100,
which includes "host 1130 configured to monitor a content source 1140 to
identify recent content publication activity by one or more co-users and
provide information associated with the recent content publication activity to
a client 1110 for presentation to a user." (i-f 100.) Armstrong further
explains that "a user may automatically be notified whenever a co-user who
is known to the user has engaged in recent content publication activity that is
identified as being related to a search of content publication activity that was
previously performed by the user." (i-f 134.) For example, Armstrong
explains that "the user may perform a search for content publication activity
related to 'creme brulee' at an earlier time and immediately be provided with
search results ... published by co-users RockingRocky and SingingCindy"
but "at a later time, co-user GossipyGail may publish a recipe for creme
brulee to her blog." (Id.) In an alternative embodiment, Armstrong explains
that "client 1110 receives the recent content publication activity information
for the second user identity from the host 1130" and "client 1110 determines
whether the first user desires to receive the recent content publication
activity information associated with the second user identity." (i-f 125.)
Because Armstrong explains that the user can automatically be notified
whenever a co-user related to a previous query publishes new content and
that client 1110 determines whether to receive content publication activity
information for the second user identity, Armstrong teaches the limitation
"filtering out, by the client device from among the received notifications,
7
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
any of the received notifications [that] do not involve interaction by a user of
the client device, where the filtering out results in remaining notifications."
Appellants argue that "counter to the Examiner's allegation, the cited
portions of Armstrong fail to disclose a client device receiving notifications
and then the same client device filtering out any of the received notifications
that do not involve interactions by the device user." (App. Br. 7 ( emphases
omitted); see also Reply Br. 8-9.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments,
Figure 11 of Armstrong illustrates communications system 1100, including
client 1110, which "determines whether the first user desires to receive the
recent content publication activity information associated with the second
user identity." (i-f 125.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Huang,
Herf, Vendrow, and Armstrong teaches the limitation "filtering out, by the
client device from among the received notifications, any of the received
notifications [that] do not involve interaction by a user of the client device,
where the filtering out results in remaining notifications."
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 12-13;
see also Reply Br. 12-13) that the combination of Huang, Herf, Vendrow,
and Armstrong would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation "displaying, by the client device, at least one
of the remaining notifications including, for each displayed notification, the
posted content, the previously-posted content, the first identifier, and the
second identifier."
The Examiner found that Figure 13 of Armstrong, which illustrates
graphical user interface (GUI) 1300 used for searching publication activity,
corresponds to the limitation "displaying, by the client device, at least one of
8
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
the remaining notifications." (Final Act. 4.) We agree with the Examiner's
findings.
As discussed previously, Armstrong explains that "a user may
automatically be notified whenever a co-user who is known to the user has
engaged in recent content publication activity that is identified as being
related to a search of content publication activity that was previously
performed by the user," for example, "at a later time, co-user GossipyGail
may publish a recipe for creme brulee to her blog." (i-f 134.) Figure 13 of
Armstrong illustrates "GUI 1300 [that] enables a user to search for content
publication activity associated with a co-user who is included in the user's
co-user list." (i-f 127.) Thus, at the "later time," when GossipyGail publishes
a recipe for creme brulee to her blog, such blog would appear on GUI 1300.
Thus, because Armstrong explains that the user may automatically be
notified whenever a co-user has engaged in recent content publication
activity (e.g., GossipyGail), and Figure 13 illustrates GUI 1300 for content
publication activity, Armstrong teaches the limitation "displaying, by the
client device, at least one of the remaining notifications."
Appellants argue that "[ t ]hese citations [Figures 13 of Armstrong]
actually teach user searches ... but fail to disclose a client device displaying
notifications including the posted content, previously-posted content, first
identifier of the originator of the posted content, and second identifier of the
originator of the previously-posted content." (App. Br. 12 (emphases
omitted); see also Reply Br. 12-13.) However, the Examiner also cited to
Huang for teaching the limitations "content that was posted by a first
originator" and "the previously-posted content" (Final Act. 2-3) and cited to
9
Appeal2018-003160
Application 12/877,740
Herf for teaching the limitation "the first identifier[,] and the second
identifier" (id. at 3).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Huang,
Herf, Vendrow, and Armstrong teaches the limitation "displaying, by the
client device, at least one of the remaining notifications including, for each
displayed notification, the posted content, the previously posted content, the
first identifier, and the second identifier."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 5, 6, and 9--12 depend from claim 1 and
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6,
and 9--12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 13 and 18 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 18, as well as dependent claims
14, 15, 17, 19, and 20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9--15, and 17-20
is affirmed.
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
10