Ex Parte Linden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13615307 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/615,307 09/13/2012 Lee Linden
107193 7590 11/01/2018
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
19487.352.2 6040
EXAMINER
SEIBERT, CHRISTOPHERB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tmeid@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEE LINDEN and BENJAMIN LEWIS
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
non-final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, this application is related to copending
Application No. 13/615,289 and copending Application No. 13/615,328.
App. Br. 1. This application is also related to copending Application No.
13/615,321.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method for enabling a gift
transaction. Spec 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
identifying, by at least one processor, at least a first pending gift item
previously selected but not yet purchased as a gift for a recipient by a first
sender and not yet rejected by the recipient;
receiving a gift request from a second sender, the gift request
specifying the recipient and a second gift item;
identifying, by the at least one processor, a complementary
relationship between the first pending gift item from the first sender and the
second gift item from the second sender by comparing attributes of the first
pending gift item from the first sender and attributes of the second gift item
from the second sender;
sending, by the at least one processor, based on the identification of
the complementary relationship between the first pending gift item and the
second gift item, an approval electronic message requesting approval, from
the recipient, of an aggregated gift item that is a combination of the first
pending gift item from the first sender and the second gift item from the
second sender; and
in response to approval of the aggregated gift item by the recipient
and prior to the first sender or the second sender purchasing the first pending
gift item or the second gift item:
posting a notification of the aggregated gift item for publication by an
online social network, the notification identifying the first sender, the second
sender, the recipient, and the aggregated gift item, and the notification
available for viewing and comment among the first sender, the second
sender, friends of the first sender, and friends of the second sender; and
initiating payment of the second gift item on behalf of the second
sender.
2
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Non-Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, and 16-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of O'Sullivan et al.
(US 2010/0280879 Al; published Nov. 4, 2010) ("O'Sullivan"),
Morgenstern (US 2008/0189188 Al; published Aug. 7, 2008), and Hsu et al.
(US 2006/0122926 Al; published June 8, 2006) ("Hsu"). Non-Final Act. 5-
9.
Claims 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of O'Sullivan,
Morgenstern, Hsu, and Jacobi et al. (US 2011/0166956 Al; published July
7, 2011) ("Jacobi"). Non-Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, Hsu, and
Agarwal (US 2006/0178946 Al; published Aug. 10, 2006). Non-Final Act.
11-12.
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No.
13/615,289, claim 1 of copending Application No. 13/615,321, and claim 1
of copending Application No. 13/615,328. Non-Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
3
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
other arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer (Ans. 4--13) and in the Action from which this appeal
was taken (Non-Final Act. 2-14). We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 US.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In determining whether a claim
falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our
analysis by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 76-77 (2012)).
In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. See id. at 2356.
If the claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we then
consider the elements of the claim-both individually and as an ordered
combination-to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature
of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. at
2355. This is a search for an "inventive concept"-an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
4
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
"significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Id. (internal quotations and
citation omitted). The Court acknowledged in Mayo that "all inventions at
some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look
to whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See
Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2-10
and 12-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined the claims are
directed to an abstract idea of "gift shopping," i.e., a "fundamental economic
practice." Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner also determined the claims as a
whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at
4--5.
Alice Step 1: Abstract Idea
As to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants contend the
Examiner erred by inventing an abstract idea and not citing case authority
for the conclusion that "gift shopping" is an abstract idea akin to a
fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity.
App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded of error. To determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to an abstract idea, we need only look to other decisions
where similar concepts were previously found abstract by the courts. See
Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("Instead of a definition [for what an 'abstract idea'
encompasses], then, the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to
5
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be
seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.")
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention resembles the
claims at issue in Alice. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5. Claim 1 is
directed to gift shopping, whereby a complementary relationship between
two gifts sent by two senders is identified, the recipient is notified on an
online social network of the resulting aggregate gift, and, after the recipient
approves the gift, payment for the second gift is initiated. Gift shopping is a
fundamental economic practice, long prevalent in our system of commerce,
like the risk hedging in Bilski (see Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010))
and the intermediated settlement in Alice (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57).
Thus, gift shopping, like the fundamental economic practices above, is an
"abstract idea" beyond the scope of§ 101. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner's conclusion that the claims
are directed to a fundamental economic practice. See Non-Final Act. 4; see
also Ans. 4--7.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner's analysis overly generalizes
the claims because "the actual claims contain numerous steps that are not
involved in the concept of 'gift shopping."' App. Br. 16. Appellants assert
that the Examiner merely copied and pasted the claim language and
concluded, without further analysis, that all of the elements are "directed to
the abstract idea." Id.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants' argument does not address
the Examiner's determinations as to which claim elements are part of the
abstract idea and which are additional elements. See Ans. 4--5. For
example, the Examiner determined that "identifying at least a first pending
6
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
gift item previously selected but not yet purchased as a gift for a recipient by
a first sender and not yet rejected by the recipient," is directed to the abstract
idea itself, while "by the at least one processor," is an additional limitation.
Id. at 5---6. Additional elements are addressed in step 2 of the Alice analysis,
which endeavors to identify additional elements "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 73).
Appellants also argue the claims are directed to concrete, patent-
eligible concepts, not mere "gift shopping." App. Br. 17. In Appellants'
view, the claims are directed to
systems and methods for sending aggregated gift items by
identifying complementary relationships between pending gift
items to the same recipient from multiple senders and utilizing
an online social network to provide digital notifications and
messages to the senders of the aggregated gift item ( and friends
of the multiple senders) prior to the senders purchasing the
aggregated gift item to initiate payment on behalf of the senders.
Id. (citing Enfzsh).
We are not persuaded. In Enfish, "the plain focus of the claims is on
an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at
1336. In contrast, we do not find a claimed focus on an improvement to the
computer functionality here. Appellants point to the Specification, but none
of the cited paragraphs explains how using a social networking system to
provide digital notifications and messages prior to a sender purchasing a gift
improves any computer functionality. See App. Br. 18 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 18,
50, 55, 56). We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to
7
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
solving a business or commercial problem, not a technical problem. See
Ans. 7.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination that the claims are directed to "gift shopping," which is a
fundamental economic practice and an "abstract idea."
Alice Step 2: Inventive Concept
As to the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue "the
actual elements of the claims go far beyond the general idea of 'gift
shopping."' App. Br. 19. As in step 1 of the Alice analysis, Appellants
again identify claim elements that Appellants do not consider part of the
abstract idea of "gift shopping." Id. at 19--20. Appellants argue the
Examiner failed to analyze any additional elements in step 2 because the
Examiner determined that all of the claim elements are directed to the
abstract idea of "gift shopping" in step 1. See id. at 19.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The question in step 2 of
the Alice analysis is not whether there are additional elements in the claims,
but whether the additional elements add anything "significantly more" to
transform the abstract concept into patentable eligible subject matter. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. The Examiner identified the recited "by the at least one
processor," and the recited social network being "online" as additional
elements. Ans. 8. The Examiner determined that the additional elements are
merely instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. Id.
Appellants have not challenged the Examiner's determinations with regard
to the additional elements identified by the Examiner. Nor have Appellants
argued that any additional element adds something "significantly more" such
that the claims are patent-eligible. See App. Br. 19--23.
8
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
For example, Appellants do not argue that any of the elements of
claims 1 and 11 are individually inventive. See App. Br. 19--20. Instead, in
the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 6-8), Appellants for the first time rely on DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in which
the Federal Circuit found claims were "necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks" because they addressed a technical issue unique to
Internet website problems. 773 F.3d at 1257.
Here, unlike in DDR Holdings, the claims merely use technology to
address issues of communication between gift senders, gift recipients, and
others, without solving any underlying technological issues. As recognized
by the Supreme Court, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59 (concluding claims "simply instruct[ing]
the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on
a generic computer" not patent eligible); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims merely reciting
abstract idea of using advertising as currency as applied to particular
technological environment of the Internet not patent eligible.); Accenture
Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344--45
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (Claims reciting "generalized software components
arranged to implement an abstract concept [ of generating insurance-policy-
related tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an
event] on a computer" not patent eligible.); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Simply adding a 'computer aided'
9
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is
insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible.").
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claimed
limitations as an ordered combination include an inventive concept because
"they provide an inventive concept that provides a technical solution to a
technical problem." App. Br. 20 (citing Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellants argue
"the ordered combination of limitations in the claims provide an inventive
concept that goes beyond mere recitation of 'gift shopping."' Id. at 21. In
particular, Appellants argue the claims
include the inventive concept of sending aggregated gift items by
identifying complementary relationships between pending gift
items to the same recipient from multiple senders and utilizing
an online social network to provide digital notifications and
messages to the senders of the aggregated gift item ( and friends
of the multiple senders) prior to the senders purchasing the
aggregated gift item to initiate payment on behalf of the senders.
Id. Appellants further argue the claimed invention "serves to provide a
digital solution that can remove concerns regarding the absence of a brick-
and-mortar store" and "serves to remove the hurdle of entering payment or
delivery information prior to selecting a gift. App. Br. 21-22.
The claims here are distinguishable from those in Bascom. In
Bascom, the system claims were directed to a "'content filtering system for
filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network,"' which the
court held were directed to an abstract idea. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348--49.
The court further held the claims included an inventive concept in the
ordered combination of system components, including a local client
computer and a remote ISP server connected to the client computer and
10
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
Internet computer network providing for "the installation of a filtering tool at
a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering
features specific to each end user." Id. at 1350. The claims at issue here do
not involve a similar or analogous arrangement or "ordered combination" of
components. We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations are
not improvements to the functioning of a computer or some other technology
(see Ans. 9--10), and that any problems being solved are commercial, not
technological. Indeed, we find nothing in Appellants' claims that adds
anything "significantly more" to transform the abstract concept of gift
shopping.
Because Appellants' claims 1-20 are directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract concept and do not recite something "significantly more" under the
second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC§ 103
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 for obviousness, the
Examiner found the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, and Hsu
teaches all of the recited limitations. Non-Final Act. 6-11.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the cited
references fail to teach or suggest the limitation
sending, by the at least one processor, based on the
identification of the complementary relationship between the
first pending gift item and the second gift item, an approval
electronic message requesting approval, from the recipient, of an
aggregated gift item that is a combination of the first pending gift
item from the first sender and the second gift item from the
second sender,
11
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
as recited by independent claim 1 and as similarly recited by independent
claim 11. App. Br. 26. Appellants argue that O'Sullivan's teaching of
determining aggregated pairs of unwanted gifts and requested exchange gifts
to determine valuation or equivalency recommendations "is fundamentally
distinct from" the disputed limitation. Id. at 27.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found
0' Sullivan identifies a "complementary relationship" between the pending
gifts by matching "specific user-designated valuation, specific user-
designated gift or item, relative current resale value of gifts, relative value of
gifts, relative relatedness between the gift recipient and another user
associated with another gift, or relative relatedness of gifts (e.g.,
manufacturer, brand, category, use or purpose, etc.)," any one of which is a
complementary relationship. Ans. 10-11 (citing O'Sullivan ,r 61). The
Examiner further found that O'Sullivan teaches that gifts can be aggregated
during this process (O'Sullivan ,r 66), and that an approval electronic
message is sent to the recipient (O'Sullivan ,r 64). Id. at 11.
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's findings persuasively.
See Reply Br. 9--10. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed
invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants
have not persuaded us that the disputed limitation would not have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in light of the combined teachings of
the cited prior art references.
12
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred because the cited
references also fail to teach or suggest the limitation
in response to approval of the aggregated gift item by the
recipient and prior to the first sender or the second sender
purchasing the first pending gift item or the second gift item:
posting a notification of the aggregated gift item for
publication by an online social network, the notification
identifying the first sender, the second sender, the recipient, and
the aggregated gift item, and the notification available for
viewing and comment among the first sender, the second sender,
friends of the first sender, and friends of the second sender,
as recited by independent claim 1, and as similarly recited by independent
claim 11. App. Br. 27-28. In particular, Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill would not read O'Sullivan and Morgenstern as teaching
posting a notification for viewing by the senders and friends of the senders
prior to the sender purchasing the gift item. Id. at 29. Appellants further
argue neither O'Sullivan nor Morgenstern teaches posting an aggregated gift
item prior to the senders purchasing the aggregated gift item. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because Appellants argue
the references separately. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner relied on O'Sullivan as teaching
posting a notification of the gift item. Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner
found that O'Sullivan teaches a notification that is sent prior to purchasing
the item. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 11 ( citing O'Sullivan Fig. 3C, ,r,r 42, 48,
56, 66). O'Sullivan, in describing Figure 3C, explicitly teaches "the
transaction manager module 208 or purchase process manager module 204
may notify the gift recipient of the gift giver's final gift selection prior to
13
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
actual purchase of the gift by the gift giver (block 332)." O'Sullivan ,r 48.
The Examiner also found Morgenstern teaches a similar notification that is
for publication by an online social network and available for viewing and
comment among the first sender, the second sender, friends of the first
sender, and friends of the second sender. Ans. 11 ( citing Morgenstern Figs.
10-13, ,r,r 56-59 and 85-89). In addition, the Examiner found Hsu teaches
identifying a pending gift item not yet rejected by the recipient. Non-Final
Act. 8 (citing Hsu Fig. 10, ,r,r 174--178). Appellants have not persuasively
addressed whether the disputed limitation would have been obvious to those
of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, and Hsu teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation recited in claims 1 and 11.
Appellants next contend the disputed subject matter would not have
been obvious because O'Sullivan teaches away from the Examiner's
proposed combination. App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 13. In particular, Appellants
argue that O'Sullivan teaches away from the disputed "posting" limitation
because "O'Sullivan warns that sharing direct information about 'selections,
specifications, or rejections' may undermine the relationship between the
sender and the recipient." App. Br. 30 (citing O'Sullivan ,r 9). Appellants
further argue that "O'Sullivan explains that information should be
maintained in 'an anonymous manner' to avoid violating 'social norms."'
Id. ( citing O'Sullivan ,r 70). Further, Appellants argue that "O'Sullivan
teaches that 'explicitness' would 'devalue the gift and/or the entire gift
giving process."' Id. (citing O'Sullivan ,r 6).
14
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
Appellants' "teaching away" argument fails because Appellants have
not identified where O'Sullivan actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages
in response to approval of the aggregated gift item by the
recipient and prior to the first sender or the second sender
purchasing the first pending gift item or the second gift item:
posting a notification of the aggregated gift item for
publication by an online social network, the notification
identifying the first sender, the second sender, the recipient, and
the aggregated gift item, and the notification available for
viewing and comment among the first sender, the second sender,
friends of the first sender, and friends of the second sender.
Claim 1; See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention
claimed") ( citing Fulton).
The paragraphs in O'Sullivan cited by Appellants do not actually
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the disputed limitation.
Paragraph 6 of O'Sullivan explains, for example, that "having the gift
recipient specify a gift to eliminate uncertainty in gift selection removes the
element of surprise and may also obligate the gift giver to an uncomfortable
price point or type of gift." O'Sullivan ,r 6. Paragraph 9 describes a "gift
incentive engine [that] combines an interactive distributed environment for
gathering anonymous ( and opaque) gift selection advice from relevant
parties .... " O'Sullivan ,r 9. Paragraph 70 describes that "knowledge held
by one party that would be beneficial to another party is obtained in an
anonymous manner (anonymous from the point of view of the non-input
15
Appeal2017-007229
Application 13/615,307
providing parties)." O'Sullivan ,r 70. As the Examiner points out,
"O'Sullivan teaches both anonymous and public notifications and therefore
cannot be said to be teaching away from a public notification." Ans. 12
( citing O'Sullivan ,r 38).
Appellants also argue the Examiner fails to provide "any cogent"
reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would read Morgenstern's
teaching (to post a notification of a purchased gift item) with O'Sullivan's
teaching (to provide a gift suggestion) in combination as teaching" the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 29--30.
We disagree. The Examiner provided "articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Ans. 11 (citing
Morgenstern ,r 26); Non-Final Act. 7-8 (citing Hsu Fig. 10, ,r,r 174--178).
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's ultimate conclusion
that claims 1 and 11 are obvious over the combined teachings of O'Sullivan,
Morgenstern, and Hsu.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11. We also sustain the Examiner's § 103 (a)
rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, not argued separately with
particularity. App. Br. 31-33.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
16