Ex Parte Schmidt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

15189331 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/189,331 06/22/2016
128144 7590
Rimon, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
12/17/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel F. Schmidt
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.
10-384-US-Cl 9386
EXAMINER
BOCCIO, VINCENT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2018 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):
uspto@rimonlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
docketing.rimonlaw@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL F. SCHMIDT
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is CBS Interactive, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 5-31. Appellant has cancelled claims 1--4. App. Br. 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). REVERSED.
Representative Claim 2
Representative claim 5 under appeal reads as follows ( emphases,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
5. A computer-implemented method, performed by one or
more computing devices, for providing a user interface for
navigation of an electronic catalog of assets the method
compnsmg:
[A.] accessing an electronic catalog of asset records
recorded as data structures in a taxonomy of
categories of assets, the categories having
corresponding attributes describing characteristics
of assets in the category, and attributes having
corresponding attribute values associated with the
characteristic indicated by the attribute;
[B.] transmitting, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, a user interface including a
first filter parameter set configured to allow a user
to select one or more filter parameters
corresponding to attribute values of assets in the
electronic catalog;
[C.] receiving, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, selection of a first filter
parameter in the first filter parameter set;
2 Representative claim 5 contains a typographical error (added by the
August 22, 2016 amendment) in the section we label as G. App. Br. 20.
For purposes of this appeal, we read claim 5 as shown herein. Claim 9 also
contains a self-evident error added by the March 17, 2017 amendment.
2
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
[D.] storing, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, in a monitoring log, the attribute value
corresponding to the first filter parameter selection
as a first tier attribute value;
[E.] transmitting, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, a second filter parameter set
configured to allow the user to select one or more
filter parameters corresponding to attribute values
of a subset of assets in the electronic catalog, each
asset in the subset having the attribute value
corresponding to the first filter parameter
selection;
[F.] receiving, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, selection of a second filter
parameter in the second filter parameter set;
[ G.] storing, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, in the monitoring[] log[,] the attribute
value corresponding to the second filter parameter
selection as a second tier attribute value with an
indication that the second tier attribute value was
selected as a sub-attribute of the first tier attribute
value;
[H.] analyzing, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, the second tier attribute value
and the indication that the second tier attribute
value was selected as a sub-attribute of the first
tier attribute value in conjunction with past
progressive filter selection information stored in
the monitoring log; and;
[I.] generating, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, one or more asset
recommendations based on the analysis.
3
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
Abbott et al.
Drieschner
Mason
References3
US 2009/0150535 Al
US 2009/0222720 Al
US 7,836,051 Bl
Rejection on Appeal
June 11, 2009
Sept. 3, 2009
Nov. 16, 2010
The Examiner rejected claims 5-31 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Drieschner, Mason, and Abbott. 4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 5 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
A.
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner determines:
Mason teaches . .. analyzing, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, the second tier attribute value and the
indication that the second tier attribute value was selected as
sub-attribute of the first tier attribute value in conjunction with
past progressive filter selection information stored in the
monitoring log (Col. 6 lines 1-5, 33-40, 61-65: the analysis
3 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
4 The contentions discussed herein as to claim 5 are determinative as to
this rejection. Therefore, Appellant's other contentions are not discussed
in detail herein. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims
6-31 further herein.
4
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
module uses user selection history, identifying each ancestor of
selected items, to generate a user's relative preference profile,
which identifies the user's predicted level of interest in specific
categories); and generating, by at least one of the one or more
computing devices, one or more asset recommendations based
on the analysis (Col. 6 lines 9-12: the recommendation/content
personalization module accesses a use' s relative preference
profile to make personalized recommendations).
Final Act. 4--5 (emphasis added).
B.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
[T]he recommendations made to the user in Mason are not based
on an analysis of "the second tier attribute value and the
indication that the second tier attribute value was selected as a
sub-attribute of the first tier attribute value in conjunction with
past progressive filter selection information stored in the
monitoring log" as recited in the claims, but rather on the user's
category preference scores. There is no[] [t]racking of attribute
selections and no consideration of the relative order of attribute
selections in the prior art.
App. Br. 13.
C.
The Examiner responds:
Mason does teach, disclose the operation, as, recited
claims which recite,
"storing ... the attribute value corresponding to the first
filter parameter selection, as a first tier attribute value" and
"storing ... the attribute value corresponding to the second filter
parameter selection as a second tier attribute value with, an
indication that the second tier attribute value was selected, as a
sub-attribute of the first tier attribute value.["]
Note the selections are based on a Tree, having, Tiers
(Fig. 1 ), being updated ( can be in, "Real Time"), to reflect the
5
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
latest item selection events, requires storing, of the selections of
the tiers, processed to the tree, once analyzed and processed, to
be later incorporated into new score values and updated,
incrementally, even in, real time.
(See Fig. 2, Tier C2 (w/score), is a Sub of Tier Cl
(w/score), as clearly indicated by the Table, wherein, Cl being
the upper Tier to C2, in ref. to Fig. 1 ).
Ans. 5-6 ( emphases omitted).
[R]ecommendations to the user, in Mason are, as argued and
claimed, wherein, based on an analysis of "the second tier
attribute value and the indication that the second tier attribute
value was selected as a sub-attribute of the first tier attribute
value in conjunction with past progressive filter selection
information stored in the monitoring log", the second tier
selections are sorted.
Ans. 14 ( emphases omitted).
D.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner's burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("[P]reponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections").
"A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]" In
re Warner, 3 79 F .2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967). "The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ...
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
We conclude the Examiner's analysis fails to meet this standard
because the rejections do not adequately explain the Examiner's findings of
fact. Particularly, the findings that the prior art discloses the argued
"analyzing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the second
6
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
tier attribute value and the indication that the second tier attribute value was
selected as sub-attribute of the first tier attribute value in conjunction with
past progressive filter selection information stored in the monitoring log" of
claim 5, based upon the prior art disclosures of Drieschner, Mason, and
Abbott.
While we agree with the Examiner that Mason teaches "a second tier
attribute value with, an indication that the second tier attribute value was
selected, as a sub-attribute of the first tier attribute value," we disagree with
the Examiner's finding that:
recommendations to the user, in Mason are, ... based on an
analysis of "the second tier attribute value and the indication that
the second tier attribute value was selected as a sub-attribute of
the first tier attribute value in conjunction with past progressive
filter selection information stored in the monitoring log."
Ans. 14 ( emphases omitted). We agree, as argued by Appellant, that Mason
bases the analysis on "preference scores" rather than the attribute/sub-
attribute relationships.
We conclude, consistent with Appellant's arguments, there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to
support the Examiner's final conclusion that claim 5 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's
invention.
7
Appeal2018-002887
Application 15/189,331
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5-31 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, the Examiner has not shown claims 5-31 to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-31.
REVERSED
8