Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2021

2020002629 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2021)

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.
15/272,370 09/21/2016 Vinodh Jayaram 1360F0142.3 6399
110828 7590 07/30/2021
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC (1360)
2601 Weston Parkway
Suite 103
Cary, NC 27513
EXAMINER
NDIAYE, CHEIKH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2021 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@kdbfirm.com
kpotts@kdbfirm.com
mfitzsimmons@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VINODH JAYARAM, JONATHAN PERLOW, KUNAL NIKHIL
MODI, and ANDREW YAOSHU SONG

Appeal 2020-002629
Application 15/272,370
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20. Claims 3 and 10 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook,
Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-002629
Application 15/272,370

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
improvements in the design of a messaging inbox, which includes the
display of different modules for providing a user with quick access to
different inbox functionalities, with the modules ranked and displayed based
on the value of the module to the messaging service. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying a first module and a second module for
presentation in an inbox interface for a messaging service, the
first module and the second module providing access to features
of the messaging service distinct from message or thread
display features;
determining a ranked order for the first module and the
second module, the ranked order determined at least in part
based on a value of the first module and the second module to
the messaging service, the value being a relative number
representing a preference of the messaging service that the user
interact with the first or second modules; and
displaying the first module and the second module in the
inbox interface for the messaging service in the ranked order
after a first subset of messages from a set of messages presented
in the inbox interface are displayed.
(Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).)
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as being indefinite. (Non-Final Act. 3.) Appellant does not address
this rejection and so it is summarily affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002629
Application 15/272,370

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owens et al. (US 2007/0157105 A1,
pub. July 5, 2007). (Non-Final Act. 3–6.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as anticipated by
Owens. (Appeal Br. 4–7.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 require that a first and second module
be ranked and displayed in an order determined at least in part based on a
value of the first module and the second module to the messaging service.
(Appeal Br. 9–11 (Claims App.).) The Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Owens of a system which selects modules for display “based upon content
provider’s preferences,” or that the content provider “want[s] to promote.”
(Ans. 8–12; Owens Fig. 1, ¶¶ 12, 107, 183.)
Appellant argues that there is no disclosure in Owens of ranking the
modules, other than the ability of the user to set the order of modules to be
displayed. (Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–4.) Our review of Owens confirms
that it does not disclose “determining a ranked order for the first module and
the second module, the ranked order determined at least in part based on a
value of the first module and the second module to the messaging service.”
Owens discloses selecting modules based on their value to the messaging

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 9, 2019); the Reply Brief
(filed Feb. 18, 2020); the Non-Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 19, 2019);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 10, 2020) for the respective details.
Appeal 2020-002629
Application 15/272,370

4
service, but does not disclose ranking the modules on that basis. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9,
11–20
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 2, 4–9,
11–20

1, 2, 4–9,
11–20
102(a)(1) Owens 1, 2, 4–9,
11–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–9,
11–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED