Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12886203 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/886,203 09/20/2010 LING JUN WONG
36738 7590 06/02/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200903049.01 1136
EXAMINER
DAILEY, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LING JUN WONG and TRUE XIONG
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-20. Apr. 8, 2014, Notice of Appeal. Claims
4---6 have been canceled. Oct. 24, 2012 Amendment 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention manages a user's access to multiple user social
networking accounts. Spec. 1. 1 In one embodiment, a management server
1 Because Appellants' Specification provides no line numbers, we refer more
generally to page numbers in this opinion.
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
(MS) is a single login gateway. Id. at 3. The server provides application
programming interfaces (APis) to interact with social networking servers
(SS). Id.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Vayssiere
Polis
Sinha
US 2006/0155698 Al
US 7,673,327 Bl
US 2011/0047229 Al
THE REJECTIONS
July 13, 2006
Mar. 2, 2010
Feb. 24, 2011
(filed July 15, 2010)
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sinha, Polis, and Vayssiere. Final Act. 6-9. 2
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sinha, Polis, Vayssiere, and common knowledge. Final Act. 17-18.3
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sinha and common knowledge. Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sinha, Polis, and common knowledge. Final Act. 11-17.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (Final Act.)
mailed January 27, 2014; (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed April 8, 2014;
(3) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed July 30, 2014; and (4) the Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed September 4, 2014.
3 The heading of this rejection includes claims 1-3 and 7. However, the
rejection's body only discusses claim 8. We presume the Examiner intended
to reject claim 8 based on this ground and determine the error is harmless.
2
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER SINHA, POLIS, AND
VAYSSIERE
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8
Claim 1, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative of claims
1-3, 7, and 8:
1. Computing device comprising:
computer processor;
the processor configured for accessing instructions on a
computer readable medium to configure the processor for:
presenting on a video display a user interface (UI) to
enable a user to manage plural social networking accounts;
sending to a management server (MS) information related
to plural social networking site accounts in which a user of the
computing device is enrolled such that the computing device is
enabled to subsequently log in to the plural social networking
accounts by a single login with the MS;
causing a push UI to be presented on the display to enable
a user to cause the MS to request updates from social networking
sites with which the user has accounts, using the account
information provided by the user, wherein the push UI includes
a selector to permit the user to select to have updates from all
social networking accounts of the user pushed to the computing
device, and a selector to permit the user to select to have updates
from only a specific social networking account from among
plural social networking accounts pushed to the computing
device.
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Sinha teaches every limitation of claim 1
except for causing a push user interface (UI) to be presented, as recited.
Final Act. 6-7. In concluding that the claim would have been obvious, the
Examiner, however, finds that Polis and Vayssiere teach this limitation.
Id. at 7-8. In particular, Examiner finds that Polis's user selects the recited
3
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
updates using a master Ul corresponding to the claimed selector. Id. at 7
(citing Polis, col. 13, 11. 9-15); Ans. 4 (citing Polis, col. 13, 11. 48-55;
col. 16, 11. 59----67). Likewise, the Examiner finds that Vayssiere discloses a
selector to have updates from only a specific RSS (Rich Site Summary) feed.
Final Act. 8 (citing Vayssiere i-f 31 ); Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine Polis's and Vayssiere's selectors with
Sinha's teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Final Act. 7-8.
Appellants argue that Polis lacks the first recited selector. App. Br.
4--5; Reply Br. 1-2. In Appellants' view, the Examiner's discussion of
Polis's master UI is not the claimed selector. App. Br. 4--5 (citing Polis,
col. 13, 11. 9-15, Fig. 4); see also Reply Br. 1-2 (arguing that Polis's master
UI is not the claimed selector).
Appellants further argue that Vayssiere lacks the second recited
selector. App. Br. 5----6; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Vayssiere
receives RSS feeds when the user logs in, and Vayssiere's feed selection
only presents the already received items. App. Br. 5 (citing Vayssiere i-f 31 );
see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing that Vayssiere "directly contradicts" the
Examiner's position). Appellants contend that Vayssiere selects already
received/pushed feeds and does not permit the user to select what updates
get received. App. Br. 5----6. Also, in Appellants' view, Vayssiere's iterative
process is irrelevant to the claim limitation. Reply Br. 3.
Issues
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Sinha, Polis, and Vayssiere would have taught or suggested
I. "a selector to permit the user to select to have updates from all
social networking accounts of the user pushed to the computing device" and
4
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
IL "a selector to permit the user to select to have updates from only a
specific social networking account from among plural social networking
accounts pushed to the computing device"?
Analysis
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
I
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Polis's master UI, like the
recited first selector, permits the user to select the recited updates from all
social networking accounts. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4. Specifically, Polis's
master UI provides a single access point for third-party services, including
social networking sites. Polis, col. 13, 11. 5-14. In this way, the UI
aggregates all services and provides the user with a uniform experience and
functionality. See id., col. 13, 11. 5-14; col. 13, 11. 50---51. To configure the
system, the user adds and removes the services at a page in Polis's system.
Id., col. 13, 11. 48-50. In other words, Polis's add-remove-services page
permits the user to select whether social networking account is part of the
master UL See id. Conversely, if the social networking accounts are not
added, Polis's user will not receive the corresponding updates for those
accounts through the interface. See id., col. 13, 11. 5-14; col. 13, 11. 50---51.
Like the recited first selector, Polis's master UI permits the user to select the
recited updates for all the user's accounts. See id., col. 13, 11. 5-14.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that
Polis's master UI cannot be reasonably mapped to the first claimed selector
of claim 1. See App. Br. 4--5 (citing Polis, col. 13, 11. 9-15, Fig. 4);
Reply Br. 1-2.
5
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
11
We, likewise, agree with the Examiner's finding that Vayssiere's RSS
preference settings, like the second recited selector, permits the user to select
the recited updates from only a specific social networking account.
Final Act. 8; Ans. 5.
Vayssiere's flowchart 300 in Figure 3, reproduced below, shows how
a user can control RSS feeds.
300 --....
312 _" I
\ ..
FIG .. 3
Vayssiere's Figure 3 showing a flowchart for controlling RSS feeds.
6
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
Figure 3 shows that the user can set preferences for RSS feeds (304).
Vayssiere, Fig. 3, cited in Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 8 (citing
Vayssiere i-f 31, which discusses Fig. 3). In accordance with the preferences,
the RSS feed items are retrieved (310) and pushed to a phone or voicemail
(314). Vayssiere, Fig. 3. For example, Vayssiere's UI allows a user to
identify a specific website to receive alerts or changes from an old phone
number to a new number. See id. i-fi-136-37 (describing the UI for setting the
preferences in element 304 of Figure 3).
Also, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Vayssiere's process
repeats. See Vayssiere, Fig. 3 (showing arrows from 302, 310, 312, 314 and
back again to 302). Therefore, we agree that future push updates (314) use
the preferences set for the previous iteration at step 304. See Ans. 5
(describing the process as "looping").
So contrary to Appellants' argument (Reply Br. 3), Vayssiere's
iterative process is relevant to the claim limitation because the user selects
which RSS feeds are pushed in future iterations. See Vayssiere, Fig. 3
(showing setting preferences 304 then later receiving pushes 314); see also
id. i-f 37 (describing how preference changes affect alert triggers). That is,
even if the user logs in when RSS feeds are received (App. Br. 5-6 (citing
Vayssiere i-f 31 ); Reply Br. 3), a specific RSS feed can be selected for future
iterations according to the user-preference settings. See Vayssiere, Fig. 3,
cited in Ans. 5; see also Vayssiere i-f 3 6; Fig. 4 (disclosing a UI for selecting
specific RSS feeds for updating in accordance with flowchart 300).
Lastly, dependent claim 8 and the rejection of this claim has not been
addressed by Appellants. See generally App. Br. and Reply Br.
7
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8
not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 1-3).
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SINHA
Claim 9
Claim 9 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
9. A social media management server (MS) including
a computer processor configured for providing a
single authentication point for a client device to log in to
multiple social networking accounts,
the MS configured for providing a set of application
programming interfaces (APis) for the client device to
interact with social networking servers (SS),
the MS configured for updating at least some AP Is
between itself and the SS without changing AP Is between
itself and the client device in that only mandatory changes
in MS-to-SS AP Is are propagated to AP Is between the MS
and client device.
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Sinha teaches all of the limitations of claim 9
except for mandatory updates. Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner finds that
mandatory and optional updates are known and supports this finding with
several rationales. See Final Act. 10 (taking Official Notice to this fact and
additionally citing Microsoft Windows); see also Ans. 8-9 (citing
Dehghan i-f 116). Under the proposed combination, the Examiner finds that
Sinha's APis 212a-212c in Figure 2B are the recited MS-to-SS APis.
Final Act. 10 (citing Sinha i-f 34 ). The Examiner further maps adding an API
in Sinha to the recited MS configured for updating at least some APis.
8
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
Ans. 7. According to the Examiner, updates to one of Sinha's AP ls do not
require updates to other APis. Id.
Appellants argue, in part, that Sinha lacks the recited "MS configured
for updating at least some AP Is between itself and the SS without changing
APis between itself and the client device." App. Br. 6-8. Also, according to
Appellants, "[c]laim 9 does not simply say 'propagat[ing] mandatory
changes but not optional ones'." Id. at 7. Appellants further contend that
the claim instead requires that only mandatory changes in MS-to-SS APis
are propagated to MS-to-client APis, which the Examiner has not shown is
obvious. Id. at 7-8.
Issue
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 by finding
that Sinha suggests or teaches "MS configured for updating at least some
APis between itself and the SS without changing APis between itself and the
client device in that only mandatory changes in MS-to-SS APis are
propagated to APis between the MS and client device"?
Analysis
Claim 9 calls for "the MS configured for providing a set of application
programming interfaces (APis)." Claim 9 also recites the MS is configured
for updating at least some ( 1) "AP Is between [the MS] and the SS" without
changing (2) "APis between [the MS] and the client device." We agree with
Appellants' argument (id.) that claim 9 requires that the MS updates the MS-
to-SS APis differently from the MS-to-client APis. See App. Br. 7-8.
Although the Examiner finds Sinha's APis 212a-212c are the recited
MS-to-SS APis (Final. Act. 10 (citing Sinha i-f 34)), we agree that the
Examiner has not shown Sinha's MS performs the function related to the
9
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
MS-to-client APls as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 7-8. Specifically, Sinha's
APis 212a-212c-the only APis identified by the Examiner (Final. Act. 9-
10; Ans. 6-9}-are not between the MS and client device, as required by
claim 9.
Notably, the MS is mapped to social media gateway (SMG) 202 in
Figure 2B. Final Act. 9. To communicate with additional social media
networks, Sinha adds APis to SMG's set of APis (212a-212c). Sinha i-f 34,
cited in Final Act. 10; see also Sinha, Fig. 2B. APis 212a-212c receive
communications from the social media network and forward these
communications to the SMG's filter 214 and aggregator 216. See Sinha
i-fi-137-38, Fig. 2B. The SMG then sends the corresponding data to virtual-
private-network (VPN) engine 204, which in tum, sends the data to user
interface 226. Id. i-f 3 8, Figs. 2B, 2C.
But, the Examiner has not pointed to any APis between the Sinha's
aggregator 216 and user interface 226---i.e., APis between the MS and client
device, as recited. See Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 6-9. That is, if Sinha's SMG
corresponds to the recited MS (Final Act. 9-10), Sinha' s AP Is 212a-212c
are between Sinha's MS and social media networks-i.e., the recited MS-to-
ss APis. See Final Act. 10 (citing Sinha i-f 34). So even assuming that
adding an API in Sinha is updating an API (see, e.g., Ans. 7), the other APis
in the set (e.g., 212a-212c) are MS-to-SS APis, not MS-to-client APis. As
such, although the Examiner's rationale accounts for the MS-to-SS APis
(id.), the Examiner has not shown any additional APis that correspond to the
MS-to-client APis.
Likewise, Examiner has not shown any additional components in
Sinha, analogous to the MS-to-client APis, that receive the recited
10
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
propagated mandatory changes, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-8). Even
assuming, without deciding, that the Examiner is correct that mandatory and
optional updates are known (see, e.g., Final Act. 10), we agree with
Appellants that this finding alone is insufficient to establish the recited
update-propagation functions of the MS. App. Br. 7-8. For example, if
Sinha's APis 212a-212c receive an update at the recited MS-to-SS APis,
then the Examiner has not also shown which of Sinha' s components are the
APis between the MS and the client device that are not changed when at
least some APis between the MS and the SS are updated and also receive the
propagated mandatory changes in the MS-to-SS APis. See Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 6-9.
Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has not shown that, in Sinha,
"the MS [is] configured for updating at least some AP Is between itself and
the SS without changing APis between itself and the client device in that
only mandatory changes in MS-to-SS APis are propagated to APis between
the MS and client device," as recited. See App. Br. 9-10.
Because this issue is dispositive regarding the Examiner's error in
rejecting this claim, we need not address Appellants' other arguments.
Id. at 6-8; Reply Br. 3--4.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 9.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SINHA AND POLIS
Claims 10 and 11
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims
10 and 11 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 9.
11
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
The Examiner did not cite Polis to teach the MS updating-propagating
functions missing from Sinha. See Final Act. 16-17. Thus, Polis does not
cure the deficiency explained previously given the record.
Claims 12-20
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-20 for
the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 9.
Specifically, claim 12 recites "not updating API between the MS and
client device responsive to a determination that an API between the MS and
a SS has been changed with a non-mandatory change." Like claim 9's
rejection, claim 12's rejection relies on Sinha for this teaching. Compare
Final Act. 11 (citing Sinha i-f 34 for updating) with Final Act. 10 (citing
Sinha i-f 34). In the rejections of claims 9 and 12, the Examiner finds that
mandatory updates are known and supports this finding with several
rationales. See id. at 12 (taking Official Notice of this fact and citing
Microsoft Windows).
But as discussed above, the Examiner has not shown which of Sinha's
APis are "between the MS and client device," let alone updating and not
updating the claimed APis in the manner recited in claim 12. See
App. Br. 8-9. As with the rejection of claim 9, the Examiner's finding
regarding mandatory updates (Final Act. 12) does not cure Sinha's
deficiency.
The Examiner did not cite Polis to teach the MS updating function
missing from Sinha. See id. at 11-13. Thus, Polis does not cure the
deficiency explained previously given the record.
12
Appeal2014-009473
Application 12/886,203
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-20.
CONCLUSION
Under§ 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 7, and
8, but did err in rejecting claims 9-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-20 is affirmed-
in-part.
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-IN-PART
13