Ex Parte Curtiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13556017 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/556,017 07/23/2012 Michael Curtiss
91230 7590 08/30/2018
Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
Dallas, TX 75201
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.
079894.0538 9704
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL CURTISS
and CHAIT ANY A MISHRA
Appeal2016-007342 1
Application 13/556,017
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and PHILLIP A.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007342
Application 13/556,017
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's non-
final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising, by one or more computing
devices:
accessing a social graph comprising a plurality of nodes
and a plurality of edges connecting the nodes, each of the edges
between two of the nodes representing a particular relationship
between the nodes and establishing a single degree of separation
between them, the nodes comprising:
a first-user node corresponding to a first user
associated with an online social network; and
a plurality of second nodes that each correspond to
a concept or a second user associated with the online social
network, wherein each second node is associated with a
privacy setting defining a visibility of each edge connected
to the second node;
receiving from the first user a structured query comprising
references to one or more selected nodes from the one or more
second nodes and one or more selected edges from the plurality
of edges;
identifying one or more target nodes corresponding to the
structured query, wherein each target node is a second node from
the plurality of second nodes that is connected to at least one
of the selected nodes by at least one of the selected edges; and
generating search results comprising references to each
target node that is connected to the first-user node in the social
graph by a series of selected nodes and selected edges that each
have a visibility that is visible to the first user, the visibility of
the selected edges being determined based on the privacy setting
2
Appeal 2016-007342
Application 13/556,017
associated with the selected nodes that defines whether the first
user can view the particular relationship represented by the
selected edge, and wherein each target node is within a threshold
degree of separation from the first-user node.
Shrufi
Lehrman
Berkhim
Prior Art
US 2007/0174304 Al
US 2009/0265326 Al
US 2013/0226918 Al
Examiner's Rejection
July 26, 2007
Oct. 22, 2009
Aug.29,2013 2
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Berkhim, Lehrman, and Shrufi.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Non-Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We address the following arguments from the Reply Brief for completeness.
Appellants contend that the combination of Berkhim, Lehrman, and
Shrufi does not teach "receiving from the first user a structured query
comprising references to one or more selected nodes from the one or more
second nodes and one or more selected edges from the plurality of edges" as
recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3--4. According to Appellants, a structured
query language used to formulate a query as taught by Shrufi does not teach
a structured query comprising references to one or more selected nodes and
one or more selected edges as claimed. Reply Br. 4.
2 Berkhim is a continuation of two earlier applications, both of which were
filed in 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-007342
Application 13/556,017
Figure 1 of Shrufi shows social network 106 with nodes 108
corresponding to people 102 and connectors ( or "edges") 110 corresponding
to social relationships 104. Shrufi ,r 17. Figure 4 shows data model 170 of
social network 106 that allows a unified approach to constructing queries,
performing queries, and providing query results. Shrufi ,r,r 21, 22. Data
model 170 can be defined with a person profile schema 190 and a connector
profile schema 192. Shrufi Figs. 5-7, ,r,r 23, 24, 30. Given the person
profile schema 190 and the connector profile schema 192, it is possible to
construct nested or hybrid person-connector searches using a structured
query language syntax. Shrufi ,r,r 35, 38, 40-42. Appellants' contention that
Shrufi does not teach a structured query comprising references to one or
more selected nodes and one or more selected edges is inconsistent with
Shrufi' s teaching of using a structured query language syntax to construct a
person-connector search of a data model having nodes corresponding to
people and connectors corresponding to relationships.
Appellants contend that the combination of Berkhim, Lehrman, and
Shrufi does not teach "each second node is associated with a privacy setting
defining a visibility of each edge connected to the second node" as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 4---6. According to Appellants, because the combination
does not teach the claimed privacy setting, the combination cannot teach
generating search results based on the privacy setting as claimed. Id. The
Examiner finds that Figure 7 and paragraph 32 of Shrufi teach connection
properties that can be private. Ans. 7-8.
Connector profile schema 192 shown in Figure 7 of Shrufi includes a
property of a connecting person who connects a searcher with an object of
the search. Shrufi ,r 31. If the connecting person is flagged as anonymous,
4
Appeal 2016-007342
Application 13/556,017
then the connecting person's profile is not displayed. Id. Similarly, other
connector properties can have restrictions such as anonymous, never shown,
hidden, visible, or none. Shrufi ,r 32, Fig. 7. The visible property represents
the visibility of a result based on the connector's privacy settings. Id.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding that
the restrictions to the properties in the connection profile schema of Shrufi,
such as never shown, hidden, and visible, teach "each second node is
associated with a privacy setting defining a visibility of each edge connected
to the second node" as claimed. Further, Appellants' contention that the
combination cannot generate search results based on the privacy setting is
inconsistent with Shrufi' s teaching that visibility of the result is based on the
privacy setting.
Appellants contend that the Examiner did not provide motivation to
combine the teachings of Berkhim, Lehrman, and Shrufi. Reply Br. 6-8.
We disagree. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the motivation to
combine the three references, consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007). See Ans. 11-14, Non-Final
Act. 8-9. Cumulative to the Examiner's findings, we highlight that Shrufi
alone appears to disclose each of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the
combination of Berkhim, Lehrman, and Shrufi renders claim 1 unpatentable.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2016-007342
Application 13/556,017
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6