Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

11396316 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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.
11/396,316 03/31/2006 Joseph C. Park 120137.530 2265
500 7590 07/25/2013
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
STIBLEY, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2013 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 JOSEPH C. PARK, KIAN FAI LEONG, and
ABHISHEK DUBEY
____________________

Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-42, 45-47, 49, 77-89, and
91-95. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to promoting the generation of useful
content by users of an answer-providing service who provide responses to
questions from other users based at least in part on incentivizing continued
participation (Spec., para. [0003]).
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for an answer-
providing service to incentivize participation of third-party
users who provide responses used in answers to questions
submitted by other third-party users, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a third-party requester user that
specifies a question to be answered and one or more tags
associated with the question for use in identifying a category
for the question; and
obtaining multiple responses to the question that are
provided by multiple third-party response provider users, the
obtaining of the multiple responses being performed by one or
more programmed computing systems;
completing the request by identifying at least two of the
obtained responses to be used as part of an answer to the
question and by providing an indication of the answer to the
requester user from whom the request was received, the
identified responses being provided by at least two of the
multiple response provider users who provide the obtained
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

3
responses, the identifying of the at least two obtained responses
and the providing of the indication of the answer being
performed by the one or more programmed computing systems;
automatically allocating experience points specific to the
question as a reward to each of the at least two response
provider users who provided the identified responses, the
allocated experience points being associated with the identified
category for the question and such that a total number of
experience points allocated to a response provider user in the
identified category represents a level of experience of that
response provider user in the identified category, a first of the at
least two response provider users having a first total number of
allocated experience points in the identified category that is
sufficiently high to provide an enhanced incentive level status
to the first response provider user for the identified category,
and a second of the at least two response provider users having
a second total number of allocated experience points in the
identified category that is not sufficiently high to provide the
enhanced incentive level status to the second response provider
user for the identified category, the automatic allocating of the
experience points specific to the question being performed by
the one or more programmed computing systems; and
at a later time, compensating the at least two response
provider users who provided the identified responses based on
an ongoing revenue stream that is generated for the answer
during a period of time after the completing of the request, and
providing one or more incentives to the first response provider
user to continue providing responses to questions of the
identified category in such a manner as to increase earning
power of the first response provider user related to prior
provided responses and to future provided responses, the
providing of the one or more incentives to the first response
provider user including extending a portion of the period of
time during which the first response provider user continues to
receive compensation from the ongoing revenue stream and
being performed based on the first response provider user
having the enhanced incentive level status, the second response
provider user not receiving the provided one or more incentives
based on the second response provider user not having the
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

4
enhanced incentive level status, the compensating of the at least
two response provider users and the providing of the one or
more incentives to the first response provider user being
performed by the one or more programmed computing systems.

11. A computer-implemented method for incentivizing
participation of users who provide responses to questions from
other users, the method comprising:
receiving indications of multiple questions supplied by
multiple requester users;
for each of the questions, responding to the question by
obtaining one or more responses to the question
from each of one or more response provider users, the
obtaining of the one or more responses being performed
by one or more programmed computing systems;
identifying at least one of the obtained responses to
be used as an answer to the question, the identifying of
the at least one obtained responses being performed by
the one or more programmed computing systems; and
automatically determining a current experience
score for each response provider user who provided at
least one of the identified responses, the determined
current experience score for each user being based at
least in part on the at least one identified responses from
the user and representing a level of experience of that
response provider user with respect to at least one of one
or more categories associated with the answer to the
question, the automatic determining of the current
experience score being performed by the one or more
programmed computing systems;
automatically determining an enhanced incentive level
status for each of one or more of the response provider users
based at least in part on the current experience score of the
response provider user; and
for each of the one or more response provider users
having the enhanced incentive level status, providing one or
more benefits to the response provider user that are not
provided to other users who do not have the enhanced incentive
level status so as to incentivize that response provider user to
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

5
continue providing responses to questions, the providing of the
one or more benefits including extending a period of time
during which at least one of the response provider users having
the enhanced incentive level status continues to receive ongoing
compensation for previously provided responses, such that the
extended period of time is longer than a period of time during
which response provider users without the enhanced incentive
level status continue to receive ongoing compensation for
previously provided responses.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14-42, 45-47, 49, 77-86, 89, 91, and 92 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner (US 6,064,978, iss.
May 16, 2000) and Choi (WO 2004/090776 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gardner, Choi, and Marks (US 2006/0004601 A1, pub. Jan. 5, 2006).
Claims 87, 88, and 93-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gardner, Choi, and Jones (US 2007/0174244 A1, pub. Jul.
26, 2007).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Gardner discloses a point system for answers to questions, in which the
“system combines the quantitative evaluation with the number of
question points assigned by the asker to the question, to compute an
award of answer points, which award is given to the answerer.” (Col. 1,
ll. 61-65).
2. Gardner further discloses that “each answerer accumulates a bank of
answer points, based on the number of questions answered and a
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

6
quantitative evaluation of each answer provided by the question asker.”
(Col. 2, ll. 63-67).
3. Gardner discloses a web page that recognizes recognition to an
individual considered an expert at answering questions. (Fig. 7).
4. Gardner discloses a number of benefits to users who respond to
questions, such as:
First, with reference to FIG. 6, public display 600
is provided with the best answerers ranked
according to the number of answer points each has
earned. Second, answerers earning a sufficient
number of answer points are given free premiums
such as tshirts. Third, answerers with sufficient
answer points may be selected for participation as
answerers in a separate WWW site where
questions and answers are exchanged for payment,
instead of non-negotiable points. Fourth,
answerers receive formal recognition of their
contribution, e.g. a business letter expressing
appreciation for their assistance, and a WWW page
acknowledging them, an example of which is
shown in FIG. 7.
(Col. 4, l. 60 to col. 5, l. 5).

Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Gardner
and Choi fail to disclose “any teaching or suggestion to generate any
ongoing revenue stream from previous answers, nor to providing a portion
of any such ongoing revenue stream as compensation to response provider
users.” App. Br. 26-27, 28. See also, Reply Br. 4-9. This argument relates
to the claim elements of “compensating the at least two response provider
users who provided the identified responses based on an ongoing revenue
stream that is generated for the answer during a period of time after the
completing of the request,” and “extending a portion of the period of time
during which the first response provider user continues to receive
compensation from the ongoing revenue stream.”
The Specification does not define “revenue stream,” and the claims do
not limit the manner in which a revenue stream is generated, nor for whom
the revenue is. Therefore, we construe “an ongoing revenue stream that is
generated for the answer” broadly, to encompass value received by response
provider users, generated and provided to the responding user as a result of
the answer, because, for the response provider user, received value is a form
of revenue.
We find Gardner discloses revenue for the response provider user in
the form of points “given to the answerer.” (FF 1). We further find that
these points are accumulated (FF 2), and when they reach a threshold
amount, additional value is provided to the response provider user, in the
form of public recognition, free premiums such as t-shirts, and additional
opportunities to earn money (FF 3, 4). Such additional value is therefore
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

8
“ongoing revenue,” because it is value received by the response provider
user, continues after the initial award of points, and extends a time for
receiving compensation beyond the initial award of points. The additional
value that is ongoing revenue is also compensation “based on an ongoing
revenue stream,” because it is dependent on the accumulated point totals
earned by the response provider user. Therefore, Gardner meets the disputed
claim language.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gardner and Choi
fail to disclose “providing a portion of any such ongoing revenue stream to a
response provider user based on the response provider user having provided
a response that is part of a previous answer used to generate the ongoing
revenue stream,” and “modifying any such provided portion . . . .” Ans. 26-
27. We first note that the terms “portion” and “modify/modifying” are not
in claim 1. Instead, the claim requires compensating users based on an
ongoing revenue stream that is generated for the answer, which we find
Gardner discloses, as set forth above.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gardner teaches
away by “emphasizing providing non-monetary benefits.” Ans. 28-29.
Based on our construction of “revenue stream” above, we find the claim
does not exclude the possibility that the revenue is non-monetary.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 10 that were not separately
argued.
Claim 8
Similarly to claim 1, independent claim 8 recites, in pertinent part,
“compensating response provider users who provided responses used as
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

9
answers based on ongoing revenue generated from the answers.” In contrast
with the extending of a time period for compensation in claim 1, however,
independent claim 8 recites “increasing an amount of compensation from the
ongoing revenue that the one response provider user receives.”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gardner and Choi
fail to disclose increasing an amount of compensation from the ongoing
revenue that the one response provider user received for previously provided
responses. App. Br. 41-46. We find that Gardner discloses increasing an
amount of compensation by offering additional rewards when a point total
reaches thresholds (FF 4), which meets the claim language by providing
additional compensation for past answers.
We have considered the remaining arguments (App. Br. 46-47, Reply
Br. 20-21) but find them unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above
at claim 1.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claim 8.

Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-37
Unlike claim 1, claim 11 recites, “providing one or more benefits to
the response provider user . . .” and “the providing of the one or more
benefits including extending a period of time during which at least one of the
response provider users having the enhanced incentive level status continues
to receive ongoing compensation for previously provided responses . . . .”
We construe no requirement in claim 11 for an “ongoing revenue stream.”
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Gardner
and Choi, similar to claim 1, fail to disclose “generating any ongoing
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

10
compensation from previous answers, nor of providing a portion of any such
ongoing compensation to response provider users.” App. Br. 30-31. Claim
11 does not require generating ongoing compensation from previous
responses, as argued, but only extending a period of time for providing
benefits to responding users. In addition, we find that Gardner discloses
providing a number of benefits to responding users, including, for some
users, providing ongoing compensation through continued posting of
recognition, and extending the period of time for receiving benefits by being
“selected for participation” in a separate web site, where the offer to
participate is itself compensation based on compensation for past answers
due to accumulated points. (FF 4).
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments that Gardner
and Choi fail to disclose “providing a portion of any such ongoing
compensation to response provider users” and “modifying any such provided
portion . . . .” App. Br. 31. These arguments fail because no such features
are required by claim 11. Instead, as set forth above, claim 11 recites that
responding users are provided benefits for responses, but this does not imply
that this is a “portion” of compensation, because the compensation in claim
11 is provided to the responding user.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gardner and Choi
disclose future opportunities for compensation, but not “generating and
using ongoing revenue streams from previously provided answers . . . .”
Reply Br. 12-13. See also, App. Br. 31. This argument fails because it is
not commensurate in scope with the language of the claim, which does not
recite “ongoing revenue streams.”
Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

11
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that no motivation,
other than hindsight, has been provided for the “functionality that the
references lack” (App. Br. 31), because we do not find the references
lacking, as set forth above.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12, 14, 15, and 17-37 which were not
separately argued. (App. Br. 31).

Claims 16, 38-42, 45-47, 49, 77-89 and 91-95
Independent claims 16, 38, 45, 77, and 92 recite claim limitations,
corresponding to arguments, similar to those in claim 11, for providing
benefits to responding users. As with claim 11, these claims do not recite or
require any “ongoing revenue stream.”
We have considered the arguments directed to claims 16, 38, 45, 77,
and 92 (App. Br. 32-50, Reply Br. 13-22), but find them unpersuasive for
the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 11. For this reason, we
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 16, 38,
45, 77, and 92. We also sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 39-42, 46, 47, 49, 78-86, 89, and 91, and separately
rejected dependent claims 87, 88, and 93-95, all of which were not
separately argued. (App. Br. 34, 36, 39, and 41).

DECISION
We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-6, 8-12,
14-42, 45-47, 49, 77-89, and 91-95.

Appeal 2011-004604
Application 11/396,316

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh