Ex Parte Curtis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

12860252 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/860,252 08/20/2010 Scott Curtis
71739 7590 05/19/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-CRD-020/US (P458) 9621
EXAMINER
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAMS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT CUR TIS and
KUNAL KANDEKAR
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to a topological map
that is representative of user affinity concentrations for a corresponding
geographic area" (Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[a] obtaining, by a computing device, a plurality of
aggregate profiles for a plurality of crowds that are relevant to a
desired geographic bounding region, wherein each aggregate
profile of the plurality of aggregate profiles is an aggregate
profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of crowds and
includes information regarding a user affinity between the
corresponding one of the plurality of crowds and a defined user
profile; and
[b] generating, by the computing device, social
topography data for the desired geographic bounding region
based on the plurality of aggregate profiles and locations of the
plurality of crowds, wherein the social topography data defines
user affinity concentrations across the desired geographic
bounding region.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robinson (US 2008/0222295 Al, pub. Sept. 11, 2008),
Sano (US 2009/0115617 Al, pub. May 7, 2009), and Alagappan
(US 2005/0210387, pub. Sept. 22, 2005).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robinson, Sano, Alagappan, and Scheibe (US 2009/0024315, pub. Jan.
22, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 16, and 20, and dependent claims 2-10, 13-15, and
17-19
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because the combination of Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan fails to disclose
or suggest limitations [a] and [b] of independent claim 1, and similarly
2
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
recited by independent claims 16 and 20 (see Appeal Br. 18-26; see also
Reply Br. 4--7). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan discloses the argued limitations (see
Final Act. 2-7), and adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments as set forth at pages 2-12 of the Answer.
In this regard, we note that Robinson is directed to a system
that uses internet content as [a] means to establish social
networks by linking internet users, searchers, viewers and/ or
listeners of the same and/ or similar internet content to each
other via a platform that enables any of the following in n-
dimensional environments: social networking, communications,
sharing, e-commerce, advertising, search, learning/education,
hosting and registry services, push and pull applications,
anonymous communications, and rich presence.
(Robinson i-f 24).
Robinson describes that its system utilizes metadata to "aid in
identifying, locating, discovering, assessing, linking, and managing content
bearing one or more metadata tags" and "provide a basis for identifying
same and/or similar content, and linking users of same/similar content via
live social networks" (id. i-f 25). Robinson discloses that users register to
access its system through a registration process which includes
a description of the individual based on parameters/criteria
needed by advertisers to post User-specific ads of interest to the
User. Upon registration, the ADDnCLICK Viewer will be
downloaded to the User. Within the ADDnCLICK Viewer, the
User will be given tools to link their current Instant Messaging
(IM) service to the ADDnCLICK environment or to an
ADDnCLICK's own IM program. The link or access to IM
will allow ADDnCLICK Users to see who on their IM list is
online at any time. The use of IM will establish a persistent
"presence" within the ADDnCLICK environment that enables
3
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
the User to determine the availability of other people for
communication.
(Id. i-f 59). Robinson further describes that users access Robinson's system
using a personal ID and "[ o ]nee logged on, ADDnCLICK' s servers will
allow the user to access his private ADDnCLICKâ„¢ homepage remotely
from any computer and to gain access to all the content, bookmarks,
communications links, IM contacts, etc." (id. i-f 56). Robinson also discloses
that "after being linked to others who are engaged in the same/similar
content, users can be sent to an internet-based map (e.g., Google Earth) to
see where (on earth or within some specific geographic location) the content
was originated from or that is the subject matter of the content" (id. i-f 235).
More particularly, Robinson discloses that "geographic coordinates
associated with a map as metadata can be related to locations of users via
LP. addresses" and "live social networking can be enabled based on a user's
interaction with or actions relative to a mapping program or other
topographic, cartographic or other geographic-centric content" (id.; see also
id. at Figs. 14A-D).
Sano is directed to an information provisioning system which
aggregates "head count information" and generates "crowd information" on
the basis of the head count information (Sano i-f 12). Sano discloses that its
system "manages information of a person present at each position on the
basis of the identification information" (id. i-f 15). Sano further discloses
determining "a current head count of persons who match a predetermined
extraction criterion, and determining whether or not the determined current
head count is equal to or more than a predetermined head count" (id. i-f 22;
see also id. i-f 312). Sano also discloses "executing a display of a map
image ... based on the received crowd information of the map image" (id.
4
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
if 38). Sano's system "displays information such as what kinds of people are
gathering, about how many people are gathering, and the like is made, which
also proves suitable for the user to judge whether or not an incident that is
happening at that location is of interest to the user" (id. if 41 ).
Alagappan is directed to an information system which "enable[ s]
users with communication devices to access affiliate profiles and perform
matches on profiles aggregated from multiple independent computer
systems" (Alagappan if 9). Alagappan discloses that its system "utilize[s]
information from each user in the form of a profile containing metadata,"
which "include various categories of information describing a user, group,
advertisement or coupon" (id. if 10). Alagappan further discloses that a
"profile may comprise the user's groups and the user's preferences including
filters for calculating matches with other user, group, advertisement and
coupon profiles" (id.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting limitation [a] of
independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claims 16 and 20,
as unpatentable over the combination of Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because paragraphs 122-136 of Robinson disclose
generally "that users could opt to send data anonymously to a third-party
server" (Appeal Br. 19); but fail to disclose or suggest "this information is a
user profile or an aggregate profile that includes information regarding a
user affinity between the corresponding one of the plurality of crowds and a
defined user profile" (id.). Appellants further argue that Sano' s user profiles
are for a person and not a crowd, thereby failing to disclose an aggregate
profile of crowds (see id. 19-20). And, regarding the Alagappan reference,
Appellants argue that the disclosed "[p ]rofiles aggregated from multiple
5
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
independent computer systems are not aggregate profiles of crowds" (id.
20), because in Alagappan, "[i]f a match is made, the user is invited to join a
group or to display an advertisements or give the user a coupon based on the
user's static or dynamic physical location" (id. at 21 ).
In response, the Examiner relies on Robinson to disclose the steps of
obtaining a plurality of user profiles and generating social topography data
for the desired geographic bounding region based on the plurality of profiles
and locations of the plurality of users, wherein the social topography data
defines user affinity concentrations across the desired geographic bounding
region (Final Act. 4 (citing Robinson i-fi-f 122-136, 235)). The Examiner
relies on Sano to disclose obtaining a plurality of profiles for a plurality of
crowds that are relevant to a desired geographic bounding region, wherein
each profile of the plurality of profiles is a profile of a corresponding one of
the plurality of crowds and includes information regarding a user affinity
between the corresponding one of the plurality of crowds and a defined user
profile (Final Act. 5-7 (citing Sano i122)). And, the Examiner turns to
Alagappan to disclose aggregate profiles (Final Act. 6-7 (citing Alagappan
i-f l 0) ). Based on these disclosures, the Examiner explains
paragraph 22 of the Sano reference discloses crowds having a
head-count of persons who match a predetermined extraction
criterion. Examiner notes that paragraph 312 of the Sano
reference discloses that extraction criterion can include
demographic information and/or preference information for a
particular user. Examiner asserts that the crowd profiles
disclosed by Sano teach the limitation because the identified
crowds of paragraph 22 have profile information including a
head-count of persons having matching user preference
information to the user profile. Further, paragraphs 20-21 of
the Sano reference disclose that the crowd information is
evaluated with respect to various positions within a specific
6
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
area range. Accordingly, Examiner asserts that the Sano
reference teaches the limitation directed to obtaining a plurality
of profiles for a plurality of crowds.
(Ans. 4).
We agree with the Examiner. In making this determination, we note
that a user profile incorporates data characterizing the user and a crowd can
simply be a group of users (see Spec. 4, 35). Thus, by merely identifying,
correlating, and/ or linking users with common characteristics, the profiles of
these users with common characteristics may be interpreted as being
aggregated under a broad, but reasonable interpretation. In this regard, Sano
counts people who match a predetermined extraction criterion within a
specific area range (see Sano i-fi-121-22, 312), and as such, aggregates users
based on a common criterion (i.e., with a common affinity and common
profile information) within a desired geographic bounding region. Robinson
links, i.e., aggregates, users in a social network when they are identified to
have common interests and correlates these users based on their location,
including based on a specific geographic location and metadata (see
Robinson i-fi-124--25; see also id. i-fi-1200-201, 235). And, Alagappan
discloses that the concept of aggregating profiles was old and well-known at
the time of Applicant's invention (see e.g., Alagappan i-f 10). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan
discloses limitation [a] of independent claim 1, and similarly recited by
independent claims 16 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting limitation
[b] of independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claims 16
and 20, as unpatentable over the combination of Robinson, Sano, and
Alagappan under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because
7
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
Robinson does not disclose aggregate profiles. Robinson does
not do so because it is only concerned with individual users. As
such, Robinson can do no more than map the locations of
individual users, and can never reach the above referenced
claim recitation. Robinson does not disclose or even suggest
topography data that defines user affinity concentrations.
(Appeal Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 5-7).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Robinson, Sano,
and Alagappan discloses the argued limitation (see Final Act. 2-7 (citing
Robinson i-f 235); see also Ans. 7-12). As discussed above, the combination
of Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan discloses "aggregate profiles for a
plurality of crowds that are relevant to a desired geographic bounding
region," as required by limitation [a]. And, as the Examiner points out,
"user affinity concentrations" read on "the data defining users located or
near the location" (see Ans. 7-8) because any identified quantity of users
with an affinity to one another is indicative of defined "user affinity
concentrations" (cf Spec. i-fi-1 82-83). That is; if there are more individual
users with common interests in or related to a particular geographic area,
then this reflects higher "user affinity concentrations," as required by
limitation [b]. We also agree with the Examiner that independent claims 1,
16, and 20 do not actually generate a displayed mapping of the recited data;
but rather, only generate social topography data "based on the plurality of
aggregate profiles and locations of the plurality of crowds" (see Ans. 10-
11 ). Thus, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive to show error in the
Examiner's rejection.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
8
Appeal2014-001123
Application 12/860,252
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-10, 13-15, and 17-19,
which were not separately argued.
Dependent claims 11 and 12
Claims 11 and 12 ultimately depend from independent claim 1.
Appellants do not present any argument in support of the patentability of
claims 11 and 12 except to assert "Scheibe fails to cure the deficiencies of
Robinson, Sano, and Alagappan with respect to the independent claims"
(Appeal Br. 26). However, we are not persuaded for the reasons set forth
above that any deficiencies exist in the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over the combination of Robinson,
Sano, and Alagappan. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 11 and 12.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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
9