Ex Parte Pizzo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

14135891 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 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.
40205/05301(MTV-053) 2780
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/135,891 12/20/2013
30636 7590 07/17/2017
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
Vincenza Pizzo
07/17/2017 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 VINCENZA PIZZO and JOEL SANDERS
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. App. Br. I.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed March 23, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed September 14,
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “systems and methods for discovering
performance artists across multiple sources of relationships between the
artists.” See Spec. 14. One embodiment allows a user to explore
performing artists, such as stand-up comedians {id., Fig. 2), and discover a
manner in which artists may be related to each other across relationship
sources, such as social connections, performance appearance connections,
social media connections, and common work connections. MU 11,33,
Fig. 3 (step 340). Based on these connections, content recommendations are
provided to the user. Id. Tflf 12, 48, Fig. 3 (step 350).
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a user request for content of a primary artist from
a user media device;
identifying a social connection between the primary artist
and a secondary artist within at least one social network; and
providing to the user media device a user recommendation
for content of the secondary artist based on the identified social
connection between the primary and secondary artists.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Walkin US 2014/0282114 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
The Rejection
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Walkin. Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 2-4.
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed December 16, 2016, and (4)
the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 31, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim l,2 the Examiner finds that Walkin
discloses every element, including the step of “providing to the user media
device a user recommendation for content of the secondary artist based on
the identified social connection between the primary and secondary artists.”
Ans. 2 (citing Walkin || 29, 35, 57, Fig. 5A). The Examiner provides a
further explanation in the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s
Answer. Ans. 5—8 (citing Walkin, Figs. 3, 5A).
Appellants argue Walkin fails to teach the recited “providing” step.
App. Br. 3. Appellants contend Walkin determines how an input results in a
further input of recommended action based on interconnections in social
graph 300. Id. at 3-4 (citing Walkin 125). According to Appellants, this
technique predicts likely actions a user is to take based on an affinity
coefficient and the user’s entered actions. App. Br. 4 (citing Walkin H 33,
34, 40); see also App. Br. 5. Appellants argue Walkin’s process can
provide, for example, (1) User A’s content (e.g., a first artist’s content) to
User D and (2) predicted actions to User D, but cannot provide a
recommendation of User B’s content (e.g., a second artist’s content), who
may be socially connected to User A, to User D. App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 3.
Based on this understanding, Appellants argue Walkin does not teach
2 Although discussing independent claims 8 and 15, Appellants state these
claims have similar limitations to claim 1 and Walkin does not disclose their
recitations “for at least the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1.”
App. Br. 5. Appellants also contend dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20
are allowable because they contain all the limitations of their respective
independent claim. Id. at 5—6. Accordingly, we group claims
1—20 and select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
providing “any content from a secondary artist based on a request for a
primary artist” or based on a social connection between the first and second
artist. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
Walkin discloses “providing to the user media device a user
recommendation for content of the secondary artist based on the identified
social connection between the primary and secondary artists”?
ANALYSIS
On the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. Walkin teaches a social networking system 160 that may store
one or more social graphs 300 and access social graph 300 and related
social-graph information for suitable applications. Walkin H 24—25, Figs. 1,
3. In particular, Walkin teaches using social graph 300 to determine a
social-graph affinity of various entries in the graph for each other based on
factors, including relationships between objects. Id. H 34—35; see also id.
33—37. Examples of relationships include social connections, such as fan,
follower, and business relationships (e.g., User C is a friend of User B). Id.
130, Fig. 3; see also Ans. 6 (discussing family, fan, follower, and business
relationships taught by Walkin). Examples of objects include users,
concepts, and content (e.g., concept node 304 shown as Song “Imagine” or
Movie “Shawshank Redemption”). Walkin H 27, 33; see Ans. 4—5
(discussing Walkin’s objects include painting, movies, songs, photos, and
concepts).
4
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
Walkin measures social-graph affinity for entries in graph 300 using
an affinity coefficient which determines the strength of a relationship or
interest level between particular objects (e.g., concepts, content, users)
associated with an online social network represented in graph 300. Walkin
1133—34; see also Ans. 7 (discussing the affinity may represent the strength
of a relationship or level of interest between objects). For example, Walkin
teaches determining a higher affinity coefficient (1) for content related to a
spouse than content related to a friend (e.g., User C is a “friend” of User B
as shown in Figure 3, cited in Ans. 2 and discussed at Ans. 6) or (2) for a
first photo that was tagged than a second photo that was liked. Walkin 137;
see also Ans. 6 (discussing both (1) Users A and B and (2) Users C and B
having a friend relationship). As such, Walkin discloses identifying social
connections (e.g., friends and followers) between users—both of which may
be artists—when determining the affinity coefficient. See Ans. 5.
Walkin further teaches a first user can have a high coefficient for one
or more second users and those second users are connected to or have a high
coefficient for a particular object. Walkin H 37, 57, cited in Ans. 2; see also
Ans. 6 (discussing references to users or concepts being connected and the
nodes corresponding to those users or concepts being connected). Given
these discussed relationships and connections, Walkin teaches determining a
first user should have a relatively high relationship for the particular object
associated with one or more second users. See Walkin 137. Walkin also
teaches determining a user’s affinity for subject matter, content, or other
users given a user’s action. Id. 136. Walkin thus collectively discloses a
first user can have a high affinity for one or more second users (e.g., both a
primary and secondary artists, such as musicians) connected to a particular
5
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
object or having an affinity for a particular subject matter/content (e.g., both
second users follow a music genre or are connected to a song). See id.
1133, 36-37, and 57.
Walkin even further teaches performing particular actions with respect
to the user based on the coefficient information, including an affinity for
second users connected to a particular object or having an affinity for a
particular subject matter/content. Id. H 37, 39. One such performed action
that uses an affinity coefficient in Walkin is (1) to present objects to the user
that are relevant to the user’s interest (e.g., search results) and (2) to rank the
objects. Id.', see also Ans. 7—8. As such, Walkin teaches a user can query
the system (e.g., request for content, such as music within a particular genre
related to a primary artist), which in turn performs an action, such providing
user recommendations for content (e.g., generates ranked search results
related to music of a particular genre performed by a primary artist). Walkin
1137,39.
Additionally, because a first user can have a high coefficient for one
or more second users (e.g., a primary artist and a secondary artist) and those
second users are connected to or have a high coefficient for a particular
object or an affinity to a particular subject matter/content (e.g., follow a
particular music genre or are connected to song) {id. H 37, 57) as discussed
above, Walkin discloses providing recommendations (e.g., ranked search
results) for content (e.g., music of a particular genre) of both second users
(e.g., the primary and secondary artists) based on an identified connection
(e.g., both artists are connected to a song or follow a particular music genre)
between the second users (e.g., the primary and secondary artists). Id. H 25,
37, and 39; see also Ans. 7—8.
6
Appeal 2017-005046
Application 14/135,891
Granted, Walkin also teaches the affinity coefficient may be used to
predict whether a user will perform a particular action based on the user’s
interest in an action (Walkin || 34, 39) as noted by Appellants. App. Br.
4—5; Reply Br. 3. However, as discussed previously, this is not the only use
for the affinity coefficient discussed in Walkin. We thus are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments to the contrary.
Accordingly, Walkin discloses “providing to the user media device a
user recommendation for content of the secondary artist based on the
identified social connection between the primary and secondary artists,” as
recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—20 not separately
argued with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under § 102.
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).
AFFIRMED
7