11413229 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

Ex Parte Gheel

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2013

11413229 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/413,229 04/28/2006 James Gheel 2006P00021US/0010-024001 8356 7590 09/19/2013 Brake Hughes PLC C/O Intellevate P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LOAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2013 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 JAMES GHEEL ____________ Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-21. (App. Br. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 2 INVENTION This invention relates "to the recording, storage, and presentation of user activity metadata for online content." (Spec. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: [a] presenting online content to a user via a display device; [b] monitoring a user's interaction with the online content; [c] collecting activity metadata generated by, and associated with, the user's interaction with the online content; [d] associating the activity metadata with the online content; [e] storing the activity metadata in a memory device; [f] receiving a query from the user for content that has been presented previously to the user; and [g] locating the online content that had been presented previously to the user based on at least some of the activity metadata. (Steps lettered and disputed limitations emphasized). REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Gross (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0064411 A1) and Sorvari (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0043758 A1). (Ans. 3-9). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and dependent Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 3 claims 3-9, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 on the basis of representative claim 1. (Reply Br. 4). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). We address the rejection of claims 2, 10, 16, 18, and 21 separately, infra. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellant's Appeal Brief. (Ans. 9-12). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. CLAIM 1 A. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "collecting activity metadata generated by, and associated with, the user's interaction with the online content," within the meaning of claim 1 and the commensurate language of claims 14 and 15? 1. Appellant contends Sorvari's bookmarks (e.g., uniform resource locators (URLs)) would not have taught or suggested the claimed "activity metadata" because the Specification describes URLs as an example of content metadata, and therefore, URLs are not included in the claimed "activity metadata." (Reply Br. 5, 6-7). Appellant's contention is not persuasive. We conclude claim 1's "activity metadata" can include bookmarks even if dependent claim 13's "content metadata" also includes bookmarks, as the claims do not preclude Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 4 "activity metadata" from including bookmarks. Moreover, Appellant fails to cite a more narrow definition of "activity metadata" in the Specification.1 We also observe the Specification describes “hyperlinks can represent the user's interaction with the web page” and the “number of times links are clicked in the web page” as examples of “activity metadata about the user's active interaction with online content . . . .” (Spec. ¶[0028]). We note a web page is normally referenced by its URL address or bookmark.2 (See Gross ¶[0047]). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s construction is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. 2. Appellant contends, "nothing in Sorvari indicates that bookmarks are 'generated by, and associated with, the user's interaction with the online content.'" (Emphasis added; Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded because Sorvari discloses "lists may also comprise the bookmarked addresses 1 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). 2 “[A]nalysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 5 accessed most recently or most frequently by the user. The lists may further comprise entries corresponding to addresses previously accessed by the user manually typing the address into the handset." (Emphasis added; Sorvari ¶[0010]; Ans. 10). Thus, we find Sorvari's bookmarked addresses (e.g., URLs) of websites accessed by the user would have taught or suggested the claimed "user's interaction with the online content." B. Regarding limitation [f] "receiving a query from the user for content that has been presented previously to the user," (emphasis added) Appellant contends Sorvari's user selecting a bookmark list to view bookmarks would not have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. (Reply Br. 8-9). Appellant's contention is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Sorvari's user's selection of a bookmark list, which is a request for retrieving bookmarks, would have taught or suggested the claimed "query." (Ans. 11; Fig. 3; ¶[0052]). C. Regarding limitation [g] "locating the online content that had been presented previously to the user based on at least some of the activity metadata," Appellant contends Sorvari's selecting a bookmark would not "locat[e] online content that had been presented previously to the user" because "bookmarks are not content, and because the content at a URL pointed to by a bookmark changes frequently, even if a user were to select a bookmark at different times, such a selection would not result in presenting content to the user that had been previously presented to the user." (Reply Br. 10). Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 6 Appellant's contention is not persuasive. First, contrary to Appellant's contention, the claim still reads on Sorvari's bookmark where the webpage has not changed since previously presented to the user. (See Ans. 10). Second, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "online content" consistent with the Specification includes bookmarks. (Spec. ¶¶[0019]-[0020]). In the Specification, URLs are included in content metadata that is included in "online content." (Id.). Third, Appellant fails to cite a more narrow definition of "online content" in the Specification. (See n.1 supra). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. According, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-20, which fall therewith. CLAIMS 2, 16, AND 21 Appellant's contention that "[s]ervice history logs and context-activity pairs also are not equivalent to actual content" is not persuasive. (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 10). As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of online content includes Sorvari's URLs that are stored locally. (¶[0059]; Ans. 11). Also, we conclude Sorvari's storing of URLs, context-activity pairs, and service history logs would have taught or suggested the claimed "storing of online content." (See Ans. 11-12). One skilled in the art would have inferred that locally storing the online content on the user's client would make the content easier to retrieve. (See n.2). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appeal 2011-004356 Application 11/413,229 7 CLAIMS 10 AND 18 Appellant urges claims 10 and 18 are patentable for the same reasons we did not find persuasive regarding the rejection of representative claim 1. (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 11). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 18 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 under § 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc