Ex Parte Fang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 24, 2018

12018511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/018,511 01/23/2008
35699 7590 10/26/2018
PVF--PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
Ji Fang
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.
PARC-20071053-US-NP 8259
EXAMINER
AUSTIN, JAMIE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
sy _incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JI FANG, VICTORIA M. E. BELLOTTI, DANIEL G. BOBROW,
and TRACY HOLLOWAY KING
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
Technology Center 3600
Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention recommends activities to a user based on
information extracted from received content, including temporal
information. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Palo Alto Research Center,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
1. A computer-executed method for recommending
activities, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server of an activity recommender
system, a message from a mobile device belonging to a user,
wherein the mobile device receives the message from another
device or is entered into the user's mobile device by the user;
analyzing, by a processor of the server of the activity
recommender system, message content to extract information
contained in the received message by performing operations
compnsmg:
identifying an activity type;
identifying an indication of willingness to participate in
the identified activity type;
determining implicit temporal information from linguistic
cues of tense information in the message content of the message
received from the mobile device, and from the identified
activity type, including assigning a system running time of the
server as the value of an activity time if the received message is
in the present tense and assigning a default activity time if the
message is not in the present tense; and
determining location information associated with an
activity of the identified activity type;
generating, by the activity recommender system, an entry
for the extracted information in a repository; and
generating, from the extracted information, a
recommendation that includes one or more activities, venues,
and/or services that afford or support activities for the user.
THE REJECTIONS 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 14--18. 3
2 Because the Examiner withdrew (1) the written description rejection of
claim 24, and (2) the obviousness rejections of claims 7-25 (Ans. 2-3),
those rejections are not before us.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June 9,
2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 1, 2016 ("App.
2
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bell (US 2003/0200192 Al; published Oct. 23, 2003),
Robertson (US 2007/0185744 Al; published Aug. 9, 2007), Hong Joo Lee et
al., Context-Aware Recommendations on the Mobile Web, OTM
WORKSHOPS 2005, LNCS 3762 142-51 (2005) ("Lee"). Final Act. 19-26.
THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea, namely analyzing received activity information, and
generating an information entry and recommendation, which is said to be
directed to an idea of itself and organizing activities. See Final Act. 14, 18.
According to the Examiner, the claimed elements do not add significantly
more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent-eligible
because, among other things, the claims lack a transformation, are not tied to
a particular machine, and do not improve a specific technology or the
computer itself. See Final Act. 14--18. The Examiner adds that the claims
recite generic computer components that perform functions that merely
implement the abstract idea on a computer. See Final Act. 16-17; Ans. 10,
15-17.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea, but rather improves computer capabilities by reciting a
recommender system that extracts implicit information implied in user
messages, including temporal information, and identifies whether the user is
interested in a certain activity or activity type. App. Br. 13-25. According
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed March 23, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4)
the Reply Brief filed May 17, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
to Appellants, the claimed invention improves the computer's functionality
by making more accurate recommendations based on the particular recited
linguistic analysis techniques. Reply Br. 8-14.
Appellants add that even if the claimed invention was directed to an
abstract idea, the claimed invention nevertheless recites significantly more
than the alleged abstract idea by not only improving the computer's
functionality, but also improving another technology, namely recommender
systems, by using extracted information to make more accurate
recommendations. App. Br. 25-28; Reply Br. 8-16.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by concluding that it is
directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101? This issue turns on
whether the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea
and, if so, whether the claim's elements----considered individually and as an
ordered combination-transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
eligible application of that abstract idea.
ANALYSIS
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, we determine
whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2354--55. If so, we then
proceed to the second step and examine the claim's elements-both
individually and as an ordered combination-to determine whether the claim
4
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
Alice Step One
Applying Alice step one, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea, namely analyzing received activity
information, and generating an information entry and recommendation. See
Final Act. 14, 18. Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, analyzing content4 of a
message received from a mobile device to extract information in the
message by (1) identifying an activity5 type and an "indication of
willingness" to participate in the identified type; (2) determining implicit
temporal information from linguistic cues of the message's tense
information, including (a) assigning a system running time of the server if
the received message is in the present tense, and (b) assigning a default
activity time if the message is not in the present tense; and (3) determining
location information associated with an activity of the identified activity
type. In addition, the claimed invention generates (1) an entry for the
extracted information in a repository, and (2) a recommendation including
one or more activities, venues, and/or services that afford or support user
activities.
4 According to the Specification, "content" is any text a user sends, receives,
or inputs to a computing device, or any texts extracted from user speeches.
Spec. ,r 21.
5 According to the Specification, an "activity" is a set of physical and/or
mental actions performed over a time period (typically a few minutes) to
accomplish a cognitive goal of which the user is consciously aware. Spec.
,r 21.
5
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
In essence, the claimed invention makes recommendations based on
information extracted from received messages. Given this fundamental data
analysis function, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary
(App. Br. 13-25; Reply Br. 8-16).
It is well settled that collecting information is within the realm of
abstract ideas----even when the information is limited to particular content.
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016). It is also well settled that analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are
essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category. Id. at 1354.
And merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Id. Similar to the claims at issue in Electric Power, the claimed invention
here gathers, manipulates, analyzes, and presents information of a specified
content, but does not use any particular inventive technology for performing
those functions.
Extracting data from a collected data set is likewise abstract. See
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding ineligible claims directed to
(1) collecting data; (2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set;
and (3) storing the recognized data in memory). Therefore, analyzing
message content to extract information in the message in the claimed
invention, like the data extraction in Content Extraction, is an abstract idea.
6
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
We find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claimed invention
improves computer capabilities by reciting a recommender system that
extracts implicit information implied in user messages, including temporal
information, and identifies whether the user is interested in a certain activity
or activity type. See App. Br. 13-25.
To be sure, the recited message content analysis determines, among
other things, implicit temporal information from "linguistic cues" of the
received message's tense information, and (a) assigns a system running time
of the server if the received message is in the present tense, and (b) assigns a
default activity time if the message is not in the present tense. For example,
if a received message says "I am watching Finding Nemo," User Content
Extraction Engine (UCEE) 204 in Figure 2 returns the time when the
message was received as the activity time because the message is in the
present tense. Spec. ,r 35. But if the message said "let's go shopping," the
system would use a default activity time because the message is not in the
present tense. Id. ,r 36.
But the claimed invention is not directed to improving the computer's
operation by, for example, improving its speed and efficiency, but rather
makes recommendations based on information extracted from received
messages with general-purpose computing components-functions that
could otherwise be performed manually. Although these functions may be
beneficial by basing recommendations on a user's past, present, or future
status with respect to a particular activity as indicated in a received message,
a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379-80
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
7
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
Nor are we persuaded that the claimed invention improves the
computing devices' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the
way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal
Circuit in Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2016), despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 14--17; Reply
Br. 11 ). The claimed self-referential table in Enfzsh was a specific type of
data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves
data in memory. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellants
contend that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a
computer's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that
device functions (see App. Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 11), there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention.
To be sure, the court in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) held that a claim directed to
using accounting information with which a network accounting record is
correlated to enhance the record was held eligible because the claim
involved an unconventional technological solution ( enhancing data in a
distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which
previously required massive databases). Although the court recognized that
this solution used generic components, the recited enhancing function
necessarily required these generic components to operate in an
unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer
functionality. Id. at 1300--01. Notably, the recited enhancement in Amdocs
depended on not only the network's distributed architecture, but also on the
network devices and "gatherers" working together in a distributed
environment. Id. at 1301. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court
8
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
noted the patent's emphasis on the drawbacks of previous systems where all
network information flowed to one location making it very difficult to keep
up with massive record flows from network devices and requiring huge
databases. Id. at 1300. The court also noted similar network-based
drawbacks that were overcome by similar unconventional distributed
solutions in other patents at issue. See id. at 1305---06.
That is not the case here. Although the claimed invention uses
conventional computing components that receive and process data, there is
no persuasive evidence on this record to show that these generic components
operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in
computer functionality as in Amdocs.
Appellants' reliance on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on page 11 of the Reply Brief is likewise
unavailing. There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal,
expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website
apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in
DDR generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented (1)
product information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel"
elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this
particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention
did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from
the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer
technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer
networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed
invention, in essence, makes recommendations based on information
9
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
extracted from received messages. The claimed invention is not necessarily
rooted in computer technology in the sense contemplated by DDR where the
claimed invention solved a challenge particular to the Internet. Although
Appellants' invention uses a server that receives messages from a mobile
device, it does not solve a challenge particular to that network. That
Appellants admit that the claimed method can be performed by a general-
purpose computer (Reply Br. 11) only bolsters the notion that the claimed
invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but
rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. Accord Ans. 16 (noting the general-purpose
computer components in Appellants' Figure 5 and paragraph 61 ).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Alice Step Two
Turning to Alice step two, the recited elements----considered
individually and as an ordered combination----do not transform the nature of
claim 1 into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea to ensure that
the claim amounts to significantly more than that idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2357.
That the recited method is executed by a server-based processor does
not change our conclusion. As the Examiner explains, the claimed invention
merely uses generic computing components to perform the recited abstract
idea, namely making recommendations based on information extracted from
received messages. See Final Act. 16-17; Ans. 10, 15-19. Merely reciting
these generic computing components cannot transform a patent-ineligible
10
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2358-
59; see also Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811
F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an
"interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components
that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and
sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not
even arguably inventive.").
Indeed, the recited generic computing components merely do that
which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper----exclusive
functions ineligible for patent protection under § 101. See CyberSource
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For
example, a human can analyze received message content to extract
information as claimed by merely reading and interpreting the message's
content, including drawing inferences from that content, based on its
context, grammar, and usage. Based on this interpretation, we see no reason
why a human could not determine whether the message is in the present
tense and, based on this determination, and assign either a system running
time of the server or some default time as an "activity time" as claimed.
That the claims do not specify how the recited assignment occurs apart from
its performance by a server-based processor only underscores the breadth of
this limitation which, as noted above, can otherwise be performed manually.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the entry and recommendation
generation steps for, here again, despite their performance by a server-based
processor, these steps could otherwise be performed manually.
11
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
To the extent that Appellants contend that the recited functions could
not otherwise be performed manually (see App. Br. 24--25), there is no
persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Even
assuming, without deciding, that there is no profession where someone
would routinely, "in their heads," (1) receive a message from a mobile
device, (2) analyze message content to extract information, and (3) generate
recommendations from the extracted information as Appellant contends
(id.), that does not mean that these functions could not otherwise be
performed entirely mentally or with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1372.
Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the recited
components add efficiency, any speed increase comes from the capabilities
of the generic computer components-not the recited process itself. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could
be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")). Like the claims in
Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
( citations and quotation marks omitted).
In short, merely reciting these generic computing components cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Id. at 2358. In other words, merely reciting an abstract idea while adding the
words "apply it with a computer" does not render an abstract idea non-
12
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
abstract: there must be more. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor does the
claimed invention improve the processor's functionality or efficiency, or
otherwise change the way that device functions. Cf Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1335. Appellants' contention, then, that the claimed invention adds
significantly more to the abstract idea by improving not only the computer's
functionality, but also recommender systems by using extracted information
to make more accurate recommendations (App. Br. 25-28; Reply Br. 8-16),
is unavailing.
We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that the recited
implicit temporal information determination, including the particular activity
time assignments depending on the received message's tense, are not well-
understood, routine, and conventional because the Examiner allegedly failed
to find references disclosing conventional technology that collectively
disclose the elements of claim 1. Reply Br. 10, 16. This argument is not
germane to the Examiner's findings in this regard, namely that adding a
generic computer to perform generic functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional, such as identifying data, receiving data,
determining data, and transmitting data, does not render the claim eligible.
See Ans. 10, 18-19. Notably, the Examiner finds that adding a generic
computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized
implementation of the recited data collection and manipulation that does not
add significantly more to the abstract idea. Ans. 10, 18. Therefore, the
Examiner did not find that recited implicit temporal information
determination, including the particular activity time assignments depending
on the received message's tense, is well-understood, routine, and
conventional, but rather the computerized implementation of an otherwise
13
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
abstract idea that employs that determination. Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings in this regard.
Lastly, to the extent that Appellants intend to argue the limitations of
the dependent claims separately with respect to their eligibility under § 101,
such as claims 3, 6, 7, 24, and 25 (see Reply Br. 11-12, 14--15), these
separate arguments were raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and are,
therefore, waived as untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2). Nor has good
cause been shown to present these arguments for the first time in the Reply
Brief.
For the foregoing reasons, then, the recited elements----considered
both individually and as an ordered combination----do not contain an
"inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 as ineligible under § 101.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bell, among other things,
( 1) determines implicit temporal information from linguistic cues of tense
information in the content of a message received from a mobile device, and
(2) generates a recommendation from extracted information in the received
message. Final Act. 19. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Bell
does not ( 1) identify an indication of willingness to participate in an
identified activity type, and (2) assign the server's system running time as
the activity time value, the Examiner cites Robertson and Lee for teaching
these respective features in concluding that the claim would have been
obvious. Final Act. 19-21.
14
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not determine implicit
temporal information from linguistic cues of tense information in the content
of a received message, let alone assign activity times depending on whether
the message is in the present tense, as claimed. App. Br. 29--33; Reply Br.
16-18. According to Appellants, Lee does not analyze message content to
assign an activity time, let alone assign such times based on tense
information, but rather merely acquires time from a device's system clock as
contextual information from which to make a recommendation. App. Br.
3 0-31; Reply Br. 1 7. Appellants add that not only do Bell and Robertson
not cure Lee's deficiencies in this regard, but the Examiner's proposed
combination changes the prior art's principle of operation. App. Br. 32-36.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Bell, Robertson, and Lee collectively would have taught or suggested a
determining implicit temporal information from linguistic cues of tense
information in the content of a received message, including assigning a
system running time of the server if the received message is in the present
tense, and, if not, assigning a default activity time?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that claim 1 recites two conditional limitations:
( 1) assigning a system running time of the server if the received message is
in the present tense, and (2) assigning a default activity time if the message
is not in the present tense. Our emphasis on the term "if' underscores these
conditions that, in a recited method, need not be satisfied to meet the claim.
15
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB
Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential); see also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2 l l l .04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) ( citing
Schulhauser ).
To be sure, one condition must occur from the recited tense
determination: either the message is in the present tense or it is not. But only
one condition need be satisfied to meet claim 1 under Schulhauser-not
both. Accord Ans. 21 ( construing claim 1 to only require a received
message in the present tense). Therefore, to the extent that Appellants
contend that both conditions must be satisfied to meet the claim given the
conjunctive term "and" recited in connection with these conditions (see
Reply Br. 1 7-18), such an argument is unavailing and not commensurate
with the scope of the claim.
Nevertheless, we find the Examiner's obviousness rejection
problematic on this record, for the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
assigning an activity time based on whether a received message is in the
present tense. In the rejection, the Examiner cites Bell's paragraphs 57 and
5 8 for teaching determining implicit temporal information from linguistic
cues of tense information in a received message. Final Act. 19. Notably,
Bell's Topical, Temporal, and Location (TTL) logic 200 uses lexical and
semantic rules to parse acquired textual information to find associated topic,
time, and location attributes. Bell ,r,r 57, 63; Figs. 2-3. Although Bell does
not specify the particulars of these lexical and semantic rules, Bell
nonetheless indicates that lexical and semantic topical word searches use
word identification and the meaning of the language. Bell ,r 77.
16
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
The term "lexical" means "of or relating to words or the vocabulary of
a language as distinguished from its grammar and construction." MERRIAM
WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 669 (10th ed. 1993) ("Merriam-
Webster Dictionary"). Moreover, the term "semantic" means "of or relating
to meaning in language," Merriam-Webster Dictionary at 1062, and,
therefore, Bell's semantic rules at least relate to the meaning of language in
the received content. Given these definitions, Bell's lexical and semantic
rules are arguably at least tangentially related to the received content's tense
because "tense" is "a distinction in the form of a verb to express distinctions
of time or duration of the action or state it denotes." See Merriam-Webster
Dictionary at 1215. That is, because Bell's lexical and semantic rules relate
to words-including verbs-and their meaning, these rules are at least
tangentially related to the tense information conveyed by these words.
Nevertheless, we cannot say-nor has the Examiner shown-that the
prior art also teaches or suggests assigning a server's system running time as
an activity time if a received message is in the present tense, as claimed.
The Examiner's reliance on Lee to cure this acknowledged deficiency
is unavailing. See Final Act. 20-21; Ans. 19--21. Lee applies context
information to recommend relevant services or content to a user, where this
context information includes the current time according to a device's or
server's system clock. See Lee 142--43, 145. Although Lee's system
effectively assigns a server's running time as an "activity time" at least with
respect to the user's context information and associated recommendations, it
does not do so based on whether the received message is in the present tense.
Indeed, there are no apparent conditions upon which Lee's system
uses ( or assigns) this server time value for contextual purposes, much less
17
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
that it is assigned if a received message is in the present tense. Nor does
Robertson cure that deficiency. To the extent that the Examiner finds that
Bell determines whether received content is in the present tense, and that
such a determination could somehow be used as a basis for assigning an
activity time as claimed in light of Lee (see Final Act. 21 ), such a position is
untenable on this record.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the cited prior art does not
teach or suggest the recited determination including assigning activity times
based on whether the received message is in the present tense. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim
1, and (2) dependent claims 2-6 for similar reasons. Because this issue is
dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
these claims, we need not address Appellants' other associated arguments.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under§ 101, but
erred in rejecting claims 1-6 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25. Because the
rejection of each appealed claim is affirmed on at least one of the grounds
specified in the Office Action from which the appeal was taken, the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(a)(l).
18
Appeal2017-008390
Application 12/018,511
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
19