Ex Parte Lawrence

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

13615730 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/615,730 09/14/2012 Steve LA WREN CE
26192 7590 08/04/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-7357019 1653
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, AZAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE LA WREN CE 1
Appeal2015-001639
Application 13/615,730
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA,
and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 21, 22, 25-29, 32-35, 38 and 39. 3 Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Google Inc. App. Br.
3.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed March 24, 2014
("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed July 14, 2014 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed September 25, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Appellant's Reply Brief filed November 12, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3 Claims 2-20 are cancelled. App. Br. 22. Claims 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, and 37
are objected to. Final Act. 1.
Appeal2015-001639
Application 13/615,730
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant's arguments.
On the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding
the combination of Masters (US 7,058, 624 B2; issued June 6, 2006) and
Kim (US 2003/0046098 Al; published Mar. 6, 2003) teach or suggest all the
limitations of independent claims 1, 27, and 34. Appellant argues:
MASTERS and KIM do not teach or suggest "determining, by
one or more server devices and for a first time period, a first
quantity of links associated with a document" in combination
with "determining, by one or more server devices and for a
second time period, a second quantity of links associated with
the document, the second time period being subsequent to the
first time period, and the second quantity of links being less than
the first quantity of links."
App. Br. 6-7. See, also, Reply Br. 2-5. In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner cites Masters, column 1, lines 32-36, as teaching these disputed
limitations. Final Act. 3. The cited passage in ivfasters states, "[a] potential
problem here is that selecting for a high number of links to a web page may
operate to favor older pages since such pages generally gamer more links as
time passes and more pages establish links to the web page at issue."
Masters 1: 32-36. The disputed limitations require the second quantity of
links (for a second time period subsequent to the first time period) to be less
than the first quantity of links. We cannot find any teaching or suggesting of
the disputed limitations in this passage. In the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner cites two additional passages in Masters. Ans. 4. We have
reviewed these passages and cannot find any teaching or suggestion of the
disputed limitations.
2
Appeal2015-001639
Application 13/615,730
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited portions of Masters teaches the disputed "determining"
limitations of independent claims 1, 27, and 34, as well as dependent claims
21, 22, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 38, and 39. As this determination is dispositive of
this appeal, we find it unnecessary to discuss Appellant's other arguments.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 21, 22, 25-29, 32-35, 38, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
3