Ex Parte Jayaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

13859374 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/859,374 04/09/2013 Vinodh Jayaram
45839 7590 06/20/2018
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
3080.082US 1 8395
EXAMINER
MEKONEN, TESFU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
USPTO@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINO DH JAY ARAM, NIPUN DA VE,
and A VERY RANDOLPH MOON
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention presents visual representations of social
network information by including a timeline that displays graphical elements
from categories of member profile information in chronological order. See
generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 2.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Linkedin Corporation. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
accessing member profile information associated with a
member of a social network:
rendering a visual representation of the accessed member
profile information that includes a first visual representation layer
associate with a first category of the member profile information and a
second visual representation layer associated with a second category
of the member profile information, the visual representation further
including a visual timeline that displays, in chronological order,
graphical elements from both the first and second categories of the
member profile information; and
presenting via a user interface the rendered visual
representation of the accessed member profile information.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Devecka (US 2012/0311462 Al; Dec. 6, 2012) and
DiPersia (US 2014/0089816 Al; Mar. 27, 2014). Final Act. 3-13. 2
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Devecka
discloses, among other things, presenting a rendered visual representation of
accessed member profile information of a social network via a user
interface, where the representation includes first and second layers
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed July 28,
2015 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 14, 2016 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 19, 2016 ("Ans."); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed September 15, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
associated with respective profile information categories. Final Act. 3--4.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Devecka does not explicitly teach
that the representation includes a visual timeline that displays graphical
elements from both categories in chronological order, the Examiner cites
DiPersia for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that modifying Devecka's icon-based resume to
display elements in chronological order as the Examiner proposes would
"seriously degrade" the system's effectiveness by calling attention to the
oldest and least important elements. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Devecka and DiPersia collectively would have taught or suggested a
visual representation including a visual timeline that displays graphical
elements from both recited categories of member profile information in
chronological order? This issue turns on whether the Examiner's proposed
combination of the cited references is supported by articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness
conclusion.
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's findings regarding Devecka's
and DiPersia's respective teachings are largely undisputed, including the
Examiner's finding that Devecka presents a rendered visual representation of
accessed member profile information of a social network via a user
3
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
interface, where the representation includes first and second layers
associated with respective profile information categories. Final Act. 3--4.
Rather, this appeal turns solely on the propriety of the Examiner's proposed
modification to Devecka, namely whether it would have been obvious to
include a visual timeline in Devecka that displays graphical elements from
both recited categories of member profile information in chronological order
in view of DiPersia.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's proposed
combination. Notably, Appellants' arguments presuppose that Devecka's
icon-based resumes would be presented in reverse-chronological order to
present job positions, skills, and accomplishments from the most important
to the least important, and that displaying these elements in chronological
order would "seriously degrade" the system's effectiveness by calling
attention to the least important elements. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
Leaving aside the fact that Appellants cite no evidence to support this
contention, Appellants' arguments also presuppose that Devecka's system is
limited to icon-based resumes-an assumption that not only runs counter to
the Examiner's findings, but also the reference itself. See Ans. 4 (finding
that Devecka's system has more features beyond generating conventional
resume elements). That Devecka's Abstract notes the system enables a user
to generate a personalized interactive business or resume profile
representing icon profile elements is telling in this regard, as is Devecka's
repeated references to generating icon-based resumes in connection with an
embodiment of the invention, and in a non-limiting, permissive sense. See
Devecka ,r 100 ("In an embodiment, the professional profile shown in FIG. 3
may be formatted, styled, organized and arranged in a resume-type format.")
4
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
( emphasis added); see also id. ,r 20 ("According to embodiments of the
present invention, the professional network icon system may be configured
to generate an icon based resume, consisting of individually interactive and
communicable professional icon elements, based on a user's professional
profile.") ( emphases added).
That Devecka's system may present any category's most important
elements in order of importance in paragraph 79, as Appellants indicate
(Reply Br. 2), does not change our conclusion. Not only is importance-
based ranking not required given Devecka's use of the permissive term
"may" emphasized above, there is no evidence on this record that the most
important elements of a professional profile or a resume are necessarily
those that are most recent as Appellants seem to suggest. Rather, there may
be particular occupations and accomplishments achieved earlier in a
member's professional career that may be more relevant or important to a
particular user viewing that member's profile. In any event, the Examiner's
finding that displaying Devecka's user information in chronological order
would make information more desirable and easier for viewers to obtain
information for a particular time period (Ans. 5) has a rational underpinning
on this record that has not been persuasively rebutted. The Examiner's
proposed combination of the cited references is, therefore, supported by
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner's obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-20 not argued separately with particularity.
5
Appeal2018-000760
Application 13/859,374
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
6