Ex Parte TIU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2016

12719793 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121719,793 03/08/2010
91230 7590 07/22/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William K. TIU JR.
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.
079894.0158 7738
EXAMINER
WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM K. TIU JR. and JEFFREY J. ROBERTO
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 21-27, 29-31, 41, 42, and 47-54.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Face book, Inc. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-20, 28, 32--40, 43, and 44 have been cancelled. Br. 14--16. The
Examiner objected to claims 45 and 46 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but stated they would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. Final Act. 11.
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to multimedia aggregation in an online
social network. Abstract. Claim 21 is illustrative and reads as follows:
21. A method comprising, by one or more computing systems:
accessing a social graph comprising a plurality of nodes
and a plurality of edges connecting the nodes, each of one or
more of the nodes being associated with one of a plurality of
users of an online social network, each connection between two
nodes representing a relationship between the two nodes and
establishing a single degree of separation between the two nodes;
generating a web page comprising user profile information
associated with a first user of the plurality of users and a link for
multimedia content hosted by a third-party source that is external
to the online social network, wherein the first user is associated
with a first node of the plurality of nodes; and
sending the web page for display to one or more second
users of the plurality of users, the one or more second users being
associated with one or more second nodes of the plurality of
node, respectively, wherein each of the second nodes is within
one degree of separation of the first node, and wherein the
multimedia content is retrieved using the link and displayed
when the web page is rendered.
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 29-31, 41, 42, and 47-54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gaedcke (US
2008/0005282 Al; published Jan. 3, 2008) and Xu et al. (US 7,685,198 B2;
issued Mar. 23, 2010) ("Xu").
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Gaedcke, Xu, and Romney (US 7,788, 183 B2;
issued Aug. 31, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Gaedcke, Xu, and King et al. (US
7,072,683 B2; issued July 4, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and
in the Action from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 21 for obviousness, the Examiner found that
Gaedcke teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 except for the recited step
of
accessing a social graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a
plurality of edges connecting the nodes, each of one or more of the
nodes being associated \'l1ith one of a plurality of users of an online
social network, each connection between two nodes representing a
relationship between the two nodes and establishing a single degree of
separation between the two nodes,
for which the Examiner relied on Xu in combination with Gaedcke. Final
Act. 2--4 (citing Gaedcke Figs 1, 5, 6, 11-18, i-fi-17, 12, 57; Xu col. 8:32--43).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Gaedcke and Xu do not teach
or suggest the step of
generating a web page comprising user profile information associated
with a first user of the plurality of users and a link for multimedia
content hosted by a third-party source that is external to the online
social network, wherein the first user is associated with a first node of
the plurality of nodes,
3
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
as recited in claim 21. Br. 6. Appellants argue that Gaedcke discloses
customizing third party web pages with user-generated content, which is the
opposite of what Claim 21 recites and "at least tends to teach away" from
generating a web page of user profile information of a first user of an online
social network, and including on that web page multimedia content hosted
by and retrieved from a third-party source that is external to the online social
network. Id. at 7. Appellants further argue that the Examiner improperly
found that the third party web page disclosed in Gaedcke is part of both an
online social network and a third-party source external to the online social
network. Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that Gaedcke teaches a typical social network for storing
and posting user profiles, and generation of a web page comprising user
profile information. Ans. 3 (citing Gaedcke i-f 4 ). The Examiner also found
that Gaedcke teaches that the network is a social network and teaches a
plurality of nodes. Id. (citing Gaedcke Abstract, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner
further found that Gaedcke teaches that a user generates a web page
associated with a second party and adds third party content to it, where the
additional content may include "'graphics, links, multimedia, advertisement,
etc."' Id. (citing Gaedcke Figs. 5, 6, i-fi-1 12, 57). Appellants have offered no
persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Appellants further argue, in a conclusory manner, that it would not
have been obvious to modify the third party web page customization system
disclosed in Gaedcke to customize web pages of an online social network
with third-party content. Br. 7. Appellants' argument does not persuade us
of error. The Examiner has provided persuasive articulated reasoning with
4
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified the
system of Gaedcke with the cited teachings of Xu. See Ans. 5---6.
Appellants have offered no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants next contend Gaedcke fails to disclose, teach, or suggest
the step of
sending the web page for display to one or more second users of the
plurality of users, the one or more second users being associated with
one or more second nodes of the plurality of node, respectively, wherein
each of the second nodes is within one degree of separation of the first
node, and wherein the multimedia content is retrieved using the link
and displayed when the web page is rendered,
as recited in claim 21. Br. 7. Appellants argue that, because the Examiner
found that Gaedcke fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "a social graph
comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting the
nodes," Gaedcke cannot disclose sending a web page for display to one or
more second users associated with one or more second nodes of the plurality
of node, respectively, wherein each of the second nodes is within one degree
of separation of the first node. Id. at 8-9.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants attack Gaedcke
individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination of
Gaedcke and Xu as teaching or suggesting the disputed features. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art."). The Examiner found that Xu teaches the recited "social
graph" limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
5
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
Appellants further contend it would not have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to modify the third party web page customization
system disclosed in Gaedcke by implementing accessing a social graph
comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting the nodes
as taught by Xu. Br. 9-11. Appellants argue that an artisan of ordinary skill
would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
third party web page customization system disclosed in Gaedcke with the
webpage tagging system disclosed in Xu to arrive at the claimed invention.
Id. at 11.
Appellants' unsupported arguments do not persuade us the Examiner
erred. As the Examiner explained, where a claimed improvement on a
device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known
element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece
of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). See Ans. 5 (citing Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509,
1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007))). We agree with the Examiner that claim 21 discloses known
elements in the art, and that the combination of those elements yields
predictable results. See id. at 6. Moreover, we find that the Examiner has
provided persuasive articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for an
artisan of ordinary skill to have modified the system of Gaedcke with the
cited teachings of Xu. Id. at 5-6. Appellants have offered no persuasive
explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusion of
obviousness.
6
Appeal2014-008929
Application 12/719,793
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Gaedcke and Xu teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 21.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 21,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 31, which
recites similar limitations, and Appellants argue is patentable for similar
reasons. Br. 6, 9. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 22, 24, 25, 29-30, 41, 42, and 47-54, not argued
separately. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 23, 26, and 27, for which Appellants make no arguments other than
those for the independent claims from which those claims depend. Id. at 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21-27, 29-31, 41,
42, and 47-54.
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
7