Ex Parte Rabbah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12853981 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/853,981 08/10/2010 Rodric Rabbah
59144 7590 06/10/2016
CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP
1100 17th STREET, NW
SUITE401
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
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.
YOR920100322US1 6904
EXAMINER
GOYEA, OLUSEGUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2016 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 RODRIC RABBAH
Appeal2014-004744 1
Application 12/853,981 2
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13, 15-19, 21-26, 29, and 30. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Corrected Appeal Brief ("Appeal
Br.," filed November 22, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
March 10, 2014), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
January 28, 2014), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 5,
2013).
2 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-004744
Application 12/853,981
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to a method and system "for
incentivizing content-receivers in social networks" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method, including:
[a] receiving a request to publish first content on a system
from a user via an interface;
[b] imposing a fee to the user to publish the first content
using a fee accounting module;
[ c] publishing the first content from the user on the system
using a processor; and
[ d] providing a credit to the user using a credit accounting
module for each instance the user receives second content from
the system, the credit being non-redeemable for cash, the
receiving of the second content including at least one of
accessing the second content by the user, viewing the second
content by the user, and clicking on the second content by the
user.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5-8, 9, 15-18, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Omidyar (US 2007/0005683 Al, pub. Jan. 4,
2007) and Heitzeberg (US 2007/0220092 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007).
Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Omidyar, Heitzeberg, and Redlich (US 2009/0132373 Al,
pub. May 21, 2009).
Claims 4, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Omidyar, Heitzeberg, and Wey (US 2011/0131085 Al,
pub. June 2, 2011 ).
2
Appeal2014-004744
Application 12/853,981
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-8
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Heitzeberg,
upon which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest "providing a
credit to the user using a credit accounting module for each instance the user
receives second content from the system," as recited by limitation [ d] of
independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 6-8; see also Reply Br. 1-2). More
particularly, Appellant argues Heitzeberg discloses "providing credit to the
user, but the credit is provided for generating content (i.e., voice comments
that a user leaves for another user (Heitzeberg, para. 0191) ), not for
receiving content (credit is taken away from the user for receiving content in
Heitzeberg)" (Appeal Br. 6).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and cites
paragraphs 173, 174, 178, 179, 184, 191, and Figure 7 ofHeitzeberg, as
disclosing the argued limitation (see Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 2-3). In
particular, the Examiner finds
the system of Heitzeberg charges a user (sender) for using and
sending content created by other users/sources and receives
credit when other users/visitors leave a voice comment. The
credit received for other users leaving a comment for the user
(sender) is used to offset the cost of using and sending content
created by other users/sources.
(Ans. 4).
The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis is that Heitzeberg does not
disclose or suggest "providing a credit to the user ... for each instance the
user receives second content from the system," as required by limitation [ d]
of independent claim 1. Instead, we agree with Appellant that Heitzeberg's
3
Appeal2014-004744
Application 12/853,981
system discloses that "the user is billed for receiving content -- not offered
credit for receiving content. Credit is given to the user for generating
content (i.e., generating a voice comment)" (Appeal Br. 7). Therefore,
although Heitzeberg discloses providing a credit, i.e., "points could be
assigned to the sender that can be used later as currency to offset the 'cost'
of acquiring content generated by another user" (Heitzeberg i-f 191 ),
Heitzeberg fails to disclose or suggest that such a credit is provided to the
user "for each instance the user receives second content from the
system ... including at least one of accessing the second content by the user,
viewing the second content by the user, and clicking on the second content
by the user," as recited by limitation [ d] of independent claim 1. The
Examiner does not rely on Omidyar to address this deficiency.
On this record, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5-8.
Independent claims 9, 18, and 25, and dependent claims 15-17, 22-24, and
26-30
Independent claims 9, 18, and 25 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied in rejecting claim 1 (see Final Act. 5-8; see also Ans. 4--5).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claims 9, 18, and 25, and dependent claims 15-17,
22-24, and 26-30, and claims 13-15, which depend therefrom, for the same
reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-004744
Application 12/853,981
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 19
Claims 2, 10, and 19 depend from claims 1, 9, and 18, respectively.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Redlich, in combination with Omidyar and Heitzeberg, does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 10, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to the independent claims.
Dependent claims 4, 13, and 21
Claims 4, 13, and 21 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 18.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 13, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Wey, in combination with Omidyar and Heitzeberg, does not cure
the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 13, and
21 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 (a) for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13, 15-19, 21-26, 29,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
5