Ex Parte Metzler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2017

12831127 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017)

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.
12/831,127 07/06/2010 David Metzler 374262-000010 1852
26379 7590
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
CHNG, JOY POH AI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID METZLER, RAND PIPP, BENJAMIN COTE,
MICHAEL CREMEAN, VICTOR TYRONE LAM, ANDREW PAXTON,
and CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—23 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to clinical social
networks and encouraging recovery using social networks (Spec., para. 2).
Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below with the reference numerals added in
bracketing, are representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for recovery based social networking, the system
comprising:
[1] a computer system comprising:
[2] a logon module configured to authorize a user to access a
recovery based social network, the recovery based social network
having one or more online communities each for a condition
of a user;
[3] a content module configured to present interactive content
to the user in response to a condition of the user, receive non-private
health input of the user from the user responsive to the interactive
content, the input comprising user content having a plurality of items,
store the input from the user; and
[4] a privacy module configured to restrict access to a first
portion of the input to a first user selected group, the first portion
comprising at least one of the plurality of items.
15. A computerized method for supporting recovery, the
method comprising:
[1] establishing a communication link with a user device
associated with a user;
[2] presenting, via the communication link, interactive content
to the user device related to recovery;
[3] receiving, via the communication link, non-private health
information of the user from the user device comprising the user’s
interaction with the interactive content;
[4] storing the non-private health information in a first
database;
[5] storing private health information associated with the user in
a second database;
[6] modifying the interactive content based, at least in part, on
automatically analyzing the private health information in the second
2
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
database and the non-private health information from the first
database, wherein modifying the interactive content docs not expose
private health information from the second database; and
[7] presenting, via the communication link, the modified
interactive content to the user device.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
3. Claims 1—4, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 6,039,688; Mar. 21, 2000), Pezaris et
al. (US 2005/0198031 Al; Sept. 8, 2005), Wall (US 2010/0042690 Al; Feb.
18, 2010), and DailyStrenth.com.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Douglas, Pezaris, Wall, DailyStrenth.com, and McGee et al. (US
2004/0249250 Al; Dec. 9, 2004).
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Douglas, Pezaris, Wall, DailyStrenth.com, and Beck (US
2007/0240203 Al; Oct. 11, 2007).
6. Claims 8—11, 13, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Douglas, Pezaris, and Wall.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Douglas, Pezaris, Wall, and McGee.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Douglas, Pezaris, Wall, and Beck.
3
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
9. Claims 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bronkema (US 2004/0247748 Al; Dec. 9, 2004), and
Zimmerman et al. (US 2006/0089857 Al; Apr. 27, 2006).
10. Claims 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bronkema, Zimmerman, and Pezaris.
11. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bronkema, Zimmerman, and Wall.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Appellants have provided no arguments in regards to the
rejections which were made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, in either the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. Accordingly,
both of these rejections are summarily sustained.
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
4
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitations [2], [3], and
[4] as listed in the claim above (App. Br. 5, 6). The argued portions of these
claim limitations require:
[2] a logon module configured to authorize a user to access a
recovery based social network, the recovery based social network
having one or more online communities each for a condition
of a user;
[3] a content module configured to . . . receive non-private
health input of the user from the user responsive to the interactive
content, the input comprising user content having a plurality of items,
[and]
[4] a privacy module configured to restrict access to a first
portion of the input to a first user selected group, the first portion
comprising at least one of the plurality of items.
(App. Br. 5, 6).
In contrast the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by the prior art (Ans. 4—11). For the argued portion of
claim limitation [3] the Examiner cites to Douglas at portions including col.
2—22; 2:30-36, 2:48—52, 9:2—22, and 9:27—30; for the argued portion of
claim limitation [4] the Examiner cites to Wall at portions including
paragraphs 3, 4, 21, 24, 26, 32, and 33; for the argued portion of claim
limitation [2] the Examiner cites to DailyStrength.com (Ans. 4—11).
We agree with the Examiner. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings in regard to the above argued claim limitations being
shown in the cited prior art as listed in the Answer at pages 4—11. For
example, Douglas at column 9, lines 2—22 discloses keeping some input
“private” such as journal entries. Wall, for example at paragraph 4,
5
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
discloses sending a message with privacy and control features.
DailyStrength.com discloses a “Sign In” (login module) as well as support
communities for different health conditions. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims which have not been specifically argued is
sustained.
The Appellants also argue limitations in claim 8 that are similar to the
limitations addressed above (App. Br. 7, 8), and we likewise agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s finding in regard to those similar claim limitations.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 8 and its dependent claims which
were not specifically argued is sustained.
With regard to claim 15 the Appellants argue that the rejection is
improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitations [2],
[3], [6], and [7] identified in the claim above which require:
[2] presenting, via the communication link, interactive content
to the user device related to recovery;
[3] receiving, via the communication link, non-private health
information of the user from the user device comprising the user’s
interaction with the interactive content;
[6] modifying the interactive content based, at least in part, on
automatically analyzing the private health information in the second
database and the non-private health information from the first
database, wherein modifying the interactive content docs not expose
private health information from the second database; and
[7] presenting, via the communication link, the modified
interactive content to the user device.
(App. Br. 8-10).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited prior art
discloses these argued claim limitations, and the Examiner cites to
Bronkema at Figures 2B, 2D, 3, 8B, 8C, 9B, and paragraphs 9, 10, 15, 17—
6
Appeal 2015-007770
Application 12/831,127
20, 22, 87, 92—94, 97, 105, and 106; and Zimmerman at paragraphs 8, 27,
43, 51, 56, and 57 (Ans. 12-19, Final Rej. 12-15).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings in this regard. Here
the above citations to Bronkema and Zimmerman disclose the above argued
claim limitations. For example, Bronkema in Figures 2A, 2B, 2D, and 8C as
well as paragraph 22 disclose the user being presented with a
communication link and receiving health information from a user.
Figure 2B shows the user receiving modified content presented on the user
device PDA. For this reason the rejection of claim 15 and its dependent
claims which were not separately argued is sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as listed in the Rejections section above.
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as listed in the Rejections
section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—23 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7