Ex Parte Schreiner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

12208047 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/208,047 09/10/2008
29393 7590 03/24/2016
ESCHWEILER & AS SOCIA TES, LLC
NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
629 EUCLID A VE., SUITE 1000
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin Schreiner
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.
BSRPlOlUS 1841
EXAMINER
CHEUNG, HUBERT G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 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):
Docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN SCHREINER
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
Technology Center 2100
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JOHN F. HORVATH, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-21, and 30-34. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to trust profile aggregation from various
trust record sources. Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of representing trustworthiness of an entity,
compnsmg:
generating a trust profile for the entity and storing the trust
profile on a hardware module without having performed a face-
to-face verification of an identity of the entity, wherein the trust
profile pertains to online trustworthiness of the entity;
receiving one or more relationship assertions from the
entity, wherein the one or more relationship assertions specify a
plurality of different websites with which the entity has
interacted online or plans to interact online;
transmitting a plurality of electronic trust record requests
to the plurality of websites, respectively, based on the one or
more relationship assertions from the entity;
after transmitting the plurality of electronic tn1st record
requests, receiving a plurality of electronic trust records from the
plurality of websites, respectively, wherein an electronic trust
record from a website includes trust relevant information
regarding previous online activity of the entity with the website;
and
updating the trust profile to reflect the online
trustworthiness of the entity based on the received plurality of
electronic trust records and the trust-relevant information
therein, wherein the updated trust profile includes an aggregated
relationship rating for the entity that is based on respective
qualities and durations of the online interactions of the entity
with the respective websites.
2
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
Bramson
Shull
REFERENCES
US 2006/004 7725 A 1
US 2006/0212931 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 2, 2006
Sept. 21, 2006
Claims 1---6, 8-21and 30-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shull and Bramson. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Final Action and Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-21, 30, 31, and 34
Appellant argues claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Shull
and Bramson because "Bramson fails to teach transmitting a plurality of
electronic trust record requests to a plurality of websites based on the one or
more relationship assertions from the entity, as recited in claim 1." App. Br.
4. Appellant further argues "Shull also fails to teach this feature of claim 1."
Id. at 6. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
The Examiner finds Bramson teaches transmitting one or more
electronic trust record requests based on relationship assertions made by an
entity by requesting one or more vouchers to vouch for profile information
entered by the entity (e.g., the entity's employment, education, organization,
and membership information). Final Act. 7-9 (citing Bramson i-fi-185, 130,
3
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
136-137; Fig. 4); Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds Shull teaches
transmitting a plurality of trust record requests to a plurality of websites by
requesting various records (e.g., credit history, property, tax, and other
public records) from various data sources over the Internet. Final Act. 4-5
(citing Shull i-fi-1 44--45); Ans. 2. Consequently, the Examiner finds the
combination of Shull and Bramson teaches or suggests "transmitting a
plurality of electronic trust record requests to a plurality of websites ...
based on the one or more relationship assertions from the entity" as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner's findings, noting that "[ n ]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Rather, "[t]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, the combined teachings of
Shull and Bramson teach or suggest the disputed limitation as explained by
the Examiner.
Appellant argues claim 8 is patentable over the combination of Shull
and Bramson for the same reason as claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellant further
argues claims 2, 5, 6, 9-21, 30, 31, and 34, which depend from one of claims
1 or 8, are patentable over the combination of Shull and Bramson for the
same reasons as claims 1 and 8. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-21, 30, 31, and 34 over the combination of
Shull and Bramson.
4
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
Claims 3, 4, and 30
Claims 3, 4, and 30 depend from claim 1. App. Br. 10, 15 (Claims
App'x). Appellant argues these claims are patentable over the combination
of Shull and Bramson for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 6. We
considered these arguments above, and are not persuaded for the reasons
explained there.
Appellant further argues claims 3, 4, and 30 are patentable over the
combination of Shull and Bramson because "Bramson fails to teach a
category field listing a first category selected from a plurality of categories
of websites, as recited in claim 3." App. Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds the combination of Shull and
Bramson teaches or suggests transmitting a plurality of trust record requests
to a plurality of websites (Shull), where the trust record requests are for
information to verify one or more assertions made by an entity in the entity's
profile (Bramson). See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3. In rejecting claim 3 as
obvious over Shull and Bramson, the Examiner finds Bramson's profile
fields (e.g., employment and education fields) are category fields selected
from a plurality of categories. Final Act. 11.
We agree with the Examiner that Bramson's profile fields represent
different categories of information, and that the combination of Bramson and
Shull therefore teaches or suggests the trust reports transmitted from
different websites include a category field selected from a plurality of
categories. See e.g. Bramson i-f 85; Shull i-fi-144, 49. For example, Shull
teaches requesting credit history records from financial websites or judicial
records from governmental websites. Moreover, Bramson teaches that a
5
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
voucher receiving a request to vouch for information in an entity's profile
can select particular fields (e.g., employment or education fields) to enable
the voucher to only vouch for information in those fields. See Bramson
ir 130.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, and
30 over the combination of Shull and Bramson.
Claims 32 and 33
Claims 32 and 33 depend from claims 1 and 3. App. Br. 10, 15
(Claims App'x). Appellant argues these claims are patentable over the
combination of Shull and Bramson for the same reasons as claims 1 and 3.
App. Br. 6-7. We considered these arguments above, and are not persuaded
for the reasons explained there.
Appellant further argues claims 32 and 33 are patentable over the
combination of Shull and Bramson because "Bramson [sic, Shull] fails to
teach an aggregated trust rating including separate category trust rating
representing trustworthiness of an entity with respect to respective categories
of websites, as recited in claim 32." App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). We are
not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
The Examiner finds Shull teaches the disputed limitations in
paragraphs 38 and 64 through 69. Final Act. 30; Ans. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds Shull teaches calculating derived scores for a plurality of
trust entities, and that the invention can be used across multiple categories of
trust scores. Ans. 4 (citing Shull iii! 38 and 64).
We agree with the Examiner. Shull teaches sending requests for
different types (i.e., categories) of records to different types of trust entities
(e.g., requesting credit histories from financial entities and judicial records
6
Appeal2014-003491
Application 12/208,047
from government entities). Id. i-fi-144--45 and 49. Shull further teaches
"calculat[ing] one or more trust score(s) for each of a plurality of online
entities based on data 202 correlated to the respective online entity," and
"calculat[ing] one or more derived score(s) 231-238 to evaluate a factor of
data correlated to online entities." Id. i164. Shull further teaches calculating
an "overall trustworthiness of the entity," e.g., by calculating an overall trust
score "based on the correlated data associated with the online entity." Id. i-fi-1
38 and 81, Fig. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 32 and 33
over the combination of Shull and Bramson.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-2 land 30-34 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7