Ex Parte Shukla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2018

14087558 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)

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.
14/087,558 11/22/2013 Saurabh Shukla 3663US01 6710
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
KHAN, ATTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAURABH SHUKLA, VINAYAK AGARAWAL,
RAJAN BHARGAVA, and MOHIT GARG
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants generally describe the disclosed and claimed invention as
follows:
Trending data demographics are described. In one or more
implementations, content posted on online content sources is
analyzed to determine topics associated with the posted content.
Analysis is then performed to ascertain which of those topics in
the posted content are trending. A determination as to which of
the topics are trending may be based on a number of times the
posted content involves a topic. For the topics that are trending,
demographic data of the users that posted about those topics is
collected. In some cases, demographic data may be assigned to
users that posted about the topics that are trending. Based on the
collected and assigned demographic data, a prediction is made to
predict segments of users that are likely to find the trending
topics interesting. Targeted content may then be provided to the
segments of users that are likely to find the trending topics
interesting.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more computing devices, topics
associated with content posted on online content sources;
ascertaining, by the one or more computing devices,
which of the topics are trending based on a number of times the
content involves a topic;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 12, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Aug. 30, 2016 (“Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Dec. 14, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed
Nov. 22, 2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
identifying, by the one or more computing devices,
posting characteristics in the content involving a trending
topic;
predicting, by the one or more computing devices,
demographic data of posting users that posted the content
involving the trending topic based on the identified posting
characteristics, the predicted demographic data being predicted
using a trained classifier that is trained using training content
posted by users having known demographic data;
predicting, by the one or more computing devices, an
audience that is likely to find the trending topic interesting
based on the predicted demographic data, the audience
including at least a first group of users having demographic
data that matches the predicted demographic data of the posting
users and at least a second group of users associated with the
first group; and
providing, by the one or more computing devices,
targeted content to the audience of users.
Br. 28 (Claims App’x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 6-8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pavlidis et al. (US 2014/0143405 Al; published
May. 22, 2014) (“Pavlidis”), Dror et al. (US 2013/0103637 Al; published
Apr. 25, 2013) (“Dror”), Pennacchiotti et al. (US 2013/0018968 Al;
published Jan. 17, 2013) (“Pennacchiotti”), and Solomon (US 2010/0125502
Al; published May 20, 2010).
Claims 13 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pavlidis, Dror, and Pennacchiotti.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pavlidis, Dror, Pennacchiotti, Soloman, and Drews et al.
(US 2013/0325977 Al; published Dec. 5, 2013) (“Drews”).
3
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pavlidis, Dror, Pennacchiotti, Soloman, and Liu et al. (US
2013/0159277 Al; published June 20, 2013).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pavlidis, Dror, Pennacchiotti, Soloman.
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established with respect to claim 1 because the proposed
combination of references fails to teach or suggest the limitations:
“identifying, by the one or more computing devices, posting
characteristics in the content involving a trending topic” and
“predicting, by the one or more computing devices, demographic
data of posting users that posted the content involving the
trending topic based on the identified posting characteristics.”
Br. 13-16. Appellants also argue the Examiner has failed to provide
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness of claim 1 based on the combination of Pavlidis,
Dror, and Penacchiotti.3 Id. at 16-18.
2. Appellants contend a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established with respect to claim 13 because the combination of
Pavlidis, Dror, and Penacchiotti fails to teach or suggest using the trained
classifier “to assign demographic data to posting users that posted the
content involving the trending topic.” Id. at 20-22. Appellants also contend
3 Although Appellants refer to Solomon in the introduction and conclusion
of their argument concerning this contention, Solomon is not otherwise
mentioned. See Br. 13-16.
4
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
the Examiner “failed to provide ‘articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning’ to support the conclusion of obviousness” of claim 13 for the
reasons discussed regarding claim 1. Id. at 22.
3. Appellants contend a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established with respect to claim 18 because the combination of
Pavlidis, Dror, and Penacchiotti fails to teach or suggest assigning, “to at
least one other user that posted about the trending topic and for which the
demographic data is not collected,” the demographic data. Id. at 23-26.
Appellants also contend the Examiner “failed to provide ‘articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning’ to support the conclusion of
obviousness” of claim 18 for the reasons discussed regarding claim 1. Id. at
26.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief that the Examiner has erred. See Br. 13-26. We have
also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments and the
evidence of record. On the record before us, we find the preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s (1) findings that the combined
teachings of the references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claims 1,13, and 18 and (2) conclusions that the combination of the cited
references would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1,13, and 18
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner has provided a detailed and comprehensive response,
supported by evidence based on the teachings of the cited references, to each
5
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
of Appellants’ contentions and arguments. Accordingly, we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-19) and in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Brief (Ans. 3-10). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Brief.
Regarding Appellants’ contention 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the cited references, including Solomon, do not
teach or suggest “identifying . . . posting characteristics in the content
involving a trending topic.” As noted by the Examiner, Solomon was not
relied on to teach this limitation. Ans. 5. Instead, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Pavlidis teaches or suggests this limitation because it
describes identifying words and phrases in social media content “as
characteristics to determine intensity and correlate that to a trend.” Id. 4-5
(citing Pavlidis ^ 61). We also agree with the Examiner that Dror teaches or
suggests the limitation “predicting . . . demographic data of posting users
that posted the content involving the trending topic based on the identified
posting characteristics,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants’ Specification
describes “age, gender, and location” as examples of “demographic data.”
See Spec. ^ 13. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 37 of Dror
teaches or suggests that demographic information, such as the user’s age,
gender, and home address, “can be derived from analysis of collected
information,” which Dror describes as the “textual content related to a user
from one or more data sources” and which we find teaches or suggests
“identified posting characteristics.” Ans. 3—4.
6
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
motivation to combine the cited references with respect to claim 1 is not
supported sufficiently by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning. Instead, we find the Examiner’s stated rationales constitute
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in accordance with
KSR. See Final Act. 4-6, Ans. 4-6; KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Co.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In addition, the Examiner finds “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination
are predictable because each element in the combination is merely
performing the same function it would perform separately.” Final Act. 6.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Here, Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence or arguments that it would not have
been possible for a person of skill in the art to combine any of the references
relied on by the Examiner by known methods or that the results of the
combinations would have been unpredictable. Absent such evidence or
arguments, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine the references for the reasons found by the
Examiner.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a).
We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 10, and 12, which are not
separately, substantively argued. See Br. 19. With respect to claims 9 and
11, Appellants argue they are allowable as depending from an allowable
base claim and for their “own recited features.” Id. Because we have
determined their base claim—claim 1—is not allowable and because the
7
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
statement that the recited features of the claims are not shown or suggested
in the references is not sufficient to constitute a separate argument for
patentability of claims 9 and 11,4 we also sustain the rejection of claims 9
and 11 under § 103(a).
Regarding claim 13, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that Pennacchiotti does not teach or suggest using the trained classifier “to
assign demographic data to posting users that posted the content involving
the trending topic.” Instead, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 14
of Pennacchiotti teaches or suggests this limitation because it teaches
“enabling] users of a social network offering a social media service such as
a microblogging service to be classified according to . . . “gender,” which, as
discussed above, is one of the Specification’s examples of “demographic
data.” See Ans. 6-7. For the reasons stated supra regarding claim 1, we
also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner fails to
provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness of claim 13. See also Final Act. 12.
Regarding claim 18, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention
the cited references do not teach or suggest assigning, “to at least one other
user that posted about the trending topic and for which the demographic data
is not collected,” the demographic data. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
paragraph 35 of Pavlidis teaches “fslocial media activity with respect to the
seed set may be evaluated to identify . . . second tier influencers.” Id. at 8.
4 See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
8
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “[ujsing [the] broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, Pavlidis teaches secondary
users [or “at least one other user”] that posted about the topic for which
demographic data is not collected via second tier influencers whose
influence affects the affinity or trend of the topic that was posted.” Id. at 8-
9 (emphasis added). Appellants did not file a reply brief and have not
presented evidence or arguments to persuasively rebut these findings. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Pavlidis teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claim 18. For the reasons stated supra regarding claim
1, we also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner fails
to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the conclusion of obviousness of claim 18. See also Final Act. 15.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 18 under
§ 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 15-17, 19, and 20, which
are not separately, substantively argued. See Br. 22, 26. With respect to
claim 14, Appellants argue it is allowable as depending from an allowable
base claim and for its “own recited features.” Id. at 22. Because we have
determined claim 14’s base claim—claim 13—is not allowable and because
the statement that the recited features of the claim are not shown or
suggested in the references is not sufficient to constitute a separate argument
for patentability of claim 14,5 we also sustain the rejection of claim 14 under
§ 103(a).
5 See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
9
Appeal 2017-008194
Application 14/087,558
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).6
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
6 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider
whether the claims implicate 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting non-statutory
subject matter (an abstract idea). See “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility,” 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014); “July 2015
Update on Subject Matter Eligibility,” 80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015);
“May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update,” 81 Fed. Reg. 27381 (May 6,
2016). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
10