Ex Parte Brydon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11132159 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTONY BRYDON and JEFF PATTERSON
____________

Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3 and 16-26. Claims 4-15 were previously cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns relationships and relationship
networks and the web of personal and professional relationships that connect
individuals. Relationship networks are used to gain access to prospects and
Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

2

buyers, and hiring managers and corporate recruiters depend on relationship
networks to find qualified candidates. Enterprise Relationship Management
(“ERM”) software applications and other business or enterprise software
includes relationship management components.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method to extend and enhance
enterprise software, to encourage users to share relationship capital that they
own, and to provide users with control over the particular relationship
capital that they make available to other members of the business or
enterprise. For example, access to relationship capital may be restricted to
persons in a workgroup. See generally Spec. 4, 15.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for maintaining ownership rights to relationships in a
social network, the method comprising:
storing relationship capital data that identifies a plurality of
relationships between entities, a given one of said relationships being
between a first entity and a second entity and being owned by said first
entity;
receiving a communication that indicates that a third entity wishes to
contact said second entity;
searching said relationship capital data, wherein said searching yields
a path from said third entity to said second entity via said first entity, and
wherein said path includes a direct link from said third entity to said first
entity;
preventing said third entity from accessing said given one of said
relationships;
sending a request to said first entity to facilitate an introduction
between said third entity and said second entity;
receiving a response from said first entity; and
sending a communication to said third entity that identifies said first
entity, only if said response indicates an approval of said request.

Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

3

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Robertson (US 6,269,369 B1, July 31, 2001) in view of
Achlioptas (US 2004/0148275 A1, July 29, 2004; filed Jan. 29, 2003). Ans.
4-11.1
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Robertson in view of Achlioptas and Teibel (US 6,366,962 B1,
Apr. 2, 2002). Ans. 11-12.

OBVIOUSNESS CONTENTIONS
As to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Robertson
discloses every recited element of representative claim 1 except receiving a
communication that indicates that a third entity wishes to contact a second
entity and sending a request to the first entity to facilitate an introduction
between the third entity and the second entity, but cites Achlioptas as
teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Ans. 4-6.
Appellants argue that if Robertson does not teach sending a request to
said first entity, then the Robertson patent cannot disclose receiving a
response to a request that was never sent. Reply Br. 2. Moreover,
Appellants assert that “Achlioptas publication does not teach a system in
which a communication is sent to a requestor that identifies the

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 24,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 7, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed August 9, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

4

intermediary, only if the intermediary indicates an approval of the request.”
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Robertson and Achlioptas collectively would have taught or suggested
identifying a first entity2 of a relationship network who has information from
the network in the form relationships between the first entity and a second
entity on request of a third entity, only if the request is approved by the first
entity?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
On this record, we find the Examiner erred in the obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, “sending a
communication to said third entity that identifies said first entity, only if said
response indicates an approval of said request” (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Robertson to show communication between
the third entity and the first entity. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner does not rely on
Robertson as showing the second entity. Ans. 5-6. As is relevant to our
analysis here, the Examiner found Robertson shows identifying the first

2 The “first entity” of claim 1 and the “intermediary” of claim 16 are the
owner of a relationship network which contains either information or the
path to the information being sought. The “second entity” of claim 1 and
“target” of claim 16 are the information contained in the relationship
network. The “third entity” of claim 1 and “user” of claim 16 are the person
or entity seeking the information through the relationship network. We will
use the terminology of claim 1 unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

5

entity to the third entity “only if said response indicates an approval of said
request.” Ans. 5, 13; Robertson, col. 8, ll. 14-29.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 1 and includes a claimed step of “hiding
an identity of said intermediary . . . .” In finding this feature is shown by
Robertson, the Examiner relied on another portion of Robertson, column 6,
lines 14-26. Ans. 7. According to the Examiner, Robertson teaches a
Permission Type table for the purpose of granting and denying access to
information and inherently teaches the prevention of access to a user. Id.
The Examiner correctly understands claim 1 as requiring three entities
and that Robertson only discloses the first and third entities, not the second
entity. See Ans. 5. The Examiner cites to Achlioptas to show the second
entity required by claim 1. As already discussed, the Examiner relies on
Robertson for the identity feature at issue.
Appellants argue that the Robertson and Achlioptas combination
neither discloses nor suggests sending a communication to the third entity
that identifies the first entity (to which the third party has the direct link),
“only if the response (from the first entity) indicates an approval of the
request, as recited in claim 1.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants also allege that in
Achlioptas, when the third entity makes a query, the system affirmatively
discloses the identity of a party in the path to which the third entity has a
direct link. App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 4-5.
We agree with Appellants that there is no disclosure in Robertson or
Achlioptas that shows or suggests either hiding the identity of the first entity
or disclosing the identity only if approval for the request for information is
given. The Examiner’s reliance on Robertson for this feature is based
entirely on the fact that Robertson shows that permission is required from
Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

6

the first entity before information is disclosed. The Examiner’s reliance on
Robertson, column 8, lines 14-29 in this regard(Ans. 14) is untenable. The
cited portion of Robertson shows a single-level inquiry between two users,
the first and third entities as per claim 1, where either can set permissions.
The identity of each is known to the other; otherwise no such request would
be made. In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner found Robertson’s teaching of
denying access to information “inherently” teaches the prevention of access
to a user, i.e., hiding the first entity from the third entity. Ans. 7 (citing
Robertson, col. 6, ll. 14-26). But granting or denying permission, as per the
“Permission Type Table,” is not the same as disclosing or hiding the identity
of the first entity owner until and only if approval is obtained, as both claims
1 and 16 require. While nominally setting permissions might be sufficient
for finding the approval element, the additional feature of the claim
precludes identification of the first entity until approval. This is alleged to
be an important feature in controlling a relationship network.
Based on the evidence presented, none of the cited references teach
disclosing the identity of the first entity only when certain conditions are
met. It follows that the record fails to demonstrate that none of the cited art
teach disclosure on the condition of approval. Indeed, both Robertson and
Achlioptas appear to require that the third entity knows who the first entity is
before any searching for the second entity would begin. Regardless,
disclosure of the identity is not conditioned on an approval.
That difference is enough to preclude a person of ordinary skill from
bridging the gap and concluding the feature of disclosure on approval was
obvious from a permission requirement of the prior art. Accordingly, we
must reverse the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claims 1 and 16,
Appeal 2010-011468
Application 11/132,159

7

and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, and 17-24 for the same reasons. Since this
issue is dispositive of our reversing the rejection of these claims, we need
not reach Appellants’ separate arguments regarding dependent claim 23.
App. Br. 19.

THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Since the Examiner has not shown that Teibel cures the deficiencies
noted above regarding independent claim 16, we likewise reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 25 and 26 for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 16-26 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 16-26 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc