Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12764929 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121764,929 04/21/2010
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
03/21/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bret Steven Taylor
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.
26295-16777 8359
EXAMINER
HUR,ECE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
ptoc@fenwick.com
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRET STEVEN TAYLOR,
MICHAEL STEVEN VERNAL,
GERALD RICHARD CAIN, and
MARK WILLIAM KINSEY
Appeal2014-004920
Application 12/764,929
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18 and 28-32, which are all the
claims pending in the application. Claims 19-27 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Real Party in Interest is identified as Facebook Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004920
Application 12/764,929
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to a social graph that includes web
pages outside of a social networking system. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
accessing information from one or more tags in a web page
by a social networking system, the web page being associated
with a domain that is different from a domain associated with the
social networking system;
creating a node in the social networking system, the
created node defined at least in part based on the accessed
information;
maintaining the node in the social networking system and
connections between the node and one or more additional nodes
maintained by the social networking system,
receiving requests from a user of the social networking
system to perform an action related to the node; and
storing information related to the user's action related to
the node by the social networking system.
Rejections
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 28-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nicholas et al. (US 2008/0126476 Al,
published May 29, 2008) and Monfried et al. (US 2008/0228537 Al,
published Sept. 18, 2008). (Final Act. 4--16.)
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nicholas, Monfried, and Price et al. (US 2009/0282110 Al, published
Nov. 12, 2009). (Final Act. 16-17.)
2
Appeal2014-004920
Application 12/764,929
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-5). We concur
with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 4---6) that the Examiner has not shown
the combination of Nicholas and Monfried teaches creating a node in the
social networking system, the created node defined at least in part based on
the accessed information, as recited in claim 1.
Nicholas teaches customizing feed content. (Nicholas Abstract.) As
the Examiner finds, Nicholas teaches a service provider node of a network
may include third party service providers such as a social networking site
that provide services to users in the network. (Nicholas i-f 103; Ans. 2.) The
Examiner has not shown, however, that the cited portions of Nicholas teach
creating a node in the social networking system based on accessed
information from a tag in a web page. The portion of Nicholas relied on for
the claimed tag describes a meta tag in a web page that may link to the
location of a feed list. (Nicholas i-f 300; see Ans. 2.) It is unclear what the
Examiner considers to be a node in a social networking system that is
defined at least in part based on the accessed information in the tag, as
recited in claim 1. We also agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 6; Reply Br.
3) the Examiner has not shown Monfried's description of a social website
requesting an advertisement to be served to the user teaches creating a node
in the social networking system, the created node defined at least in part
based on the accessed information in a tag of a website, as recited in claim
1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nicholas and Monfried. For
3
Appeal2014-004920
Application 12/764,929
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 28,
which recites limitations commensurate in scope with the limitations of
claim 1 discussed herein, and we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-18 and 29-32.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 and 28-32.
REVERSED
4