Facebook, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 23, 20212019006919 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/826,868 08/14/2015 Arpit Suresh Jain 079894.2809 1882 168743 7590 04/23/2021 Jordan IP Law, LLC (Facebook) 12501 PROSPERITY DRIVE SUITE 401 SILVER SPRING, MD 20904 EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2021 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): admin@jordaniplaw.com info@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ARPIT SURESH JAIN, RAJAT RAINA, ROUSSEAU NEWAZ KAZI, and BRETT MATTHEW WESTERVELT ____________________ Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–47, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellant, the disclosed invention, entitled “Searching Public Posts On Online Social Networks” (Title), pertains to an online social network for a user to search private posts and similar items from friends and public posts and similar items from non-friends (Spec. ¶¶ 5–6). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving a search query from a client system of a first user of an online social network; generating a plurality of query commands based on the search query, wherein the plurality of query commands comprises: a first query command comprising a first query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a first privacy setting; and a second query command comprising a second query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a second privacy setting, wherein the second privacy setting is more restrictive than the first privacy setting; executing both the first and second query commands to search one or more data stores of the online social network to identify a plurality of objects matching the plurality of query 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 3 commands, wherein the identified objects comprise: a first set of objects stored by the online social network that match the first query command; and a second set of objects stored by the online social network that match the second query command; generating one or more search results corresponding to one or more of the identified objects, respectively, each search result comprising a reference to the corresponding identified object., wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object from the first set of objects, and wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object from the second set of objects; and sending, responsive to the search query, a search–results page to the client system of the first user for display, the search– results page comprising one or more of the generated search results. Appeal Br. 17, Claims Appendix. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS and APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 45–47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2010/0174709 A1; published July 8, 2010) (hereinafter, “Hansen”) in view of Cionca et al. (US 9,600,543 B1; issued March 21, 2017) (hereinafter, “Cionca”). Final Act. 2–19; Ans. 4–9. (2) Claims 13 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Cionca, and further in view of Butterfield et al. (US 2006/0242139 A1; published Oct. 26, 2006) (hereinafter, “Butterfield”). Final Act. 20–21; Ans. 10. (3) Claims 16 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Cionca, and further in view of Wong et Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 4 al. (US 2012/0042361 A1; published Feb. 16, 2012) (hereinafter “Wong”). Final Act. 21–22; Ans. 10. (4) Claims 20 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Cionca and further in view of Markus et al. (US 2008/0228746 A1; published Sept. 18, 2008) (hereinafter “Markus”). Final Act. 22–23; Ans. 10. Appellant’s Contentions With regards to independent claims 1, 24, and 25, Appellant primarily contends that Hansen and Cionca, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest: generating a plurality of query commands based on the search query, wherein the plurality of query commands comprises: a first query command comprising a first query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a first privacy setting; and a second query command comprising a second query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a second privacy setting, wherein the second privacy setting is more restrictive than the first privacy setting; (Appeal Br. 9; see also Appeal Br. 11); executing both the first and second query commands to search one or more data stores of the online social network to identify a plurality of objects matching the plurality of query commands, wherein the identified objects comprise: a first set of objects stored by the online social network that match the first query command; and a second set of objects stored by the online social network that match the second query command; (Appeal Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 11); and generating one or more search results corresponding to one or more of the identified objects, respectively, each search result comprising a reference to the corresponding identified object, wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 5 from the first set of objects, and wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object from the second set of objects; (Appeal Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 11). Because Appellant does not present any separate arguments as to the obviousness rejections of claims 13 and 37; 16 and 40; and 20 and 44 (see supra Rejections 2, 3, and 4, respectively), Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 37; 16 and 40; and 20 and 44, and therefore we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 13 and 37; 16 and 40; and 20 and 44 over (i) Hansen, Cionca, and Butterfield; (ii) Hansen, Cionca, and Wong, and (iii) Hansen, Cionca, and Markus pro forma. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1076 (BPAI 2010) (“Precedential”) (“[T]he Board will generally not reach the merits of any issues not contested by an appellant.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv) (Each ground of rejection must be treated under a separate heading.). Other than including the prior art rejections of claims 13 and 37; 16 and 40; and 20 and 44 (see supra Rejections 2, 3, and 4, respectively) in our conclusion, we will not discuss these rejections further. ISSUE Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 7– 13) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–8),2 the following principal issue is presented on appeal: 2 Appellant argues claims 2–47 on the basis of claims 1, 24, and 25, and primarily argues claim 1, arguing the other independent claims (claims 24, 25) on that same basis (see Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–8). Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 45–47. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 6 Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 45–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Hansen and Cionca because the combination fails to teach or suggest: generating a plurality of query commands based on the search query, wherein the plurality of query commands comprises: a first query command comprising a first query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a first privacy setting; and a second query command comprising a second query constraint for objects stored by the online social network and having a second privacy setting, wherein the second privacy setting is more restrictive than the first privacy setting; executing both the first and second query commands to search one or more data stores of the online social network to identify a plurality of objects matching the plurality of query commands, wherein the identified objects comprise: a first set of objects stored by the online social network that match the first query command; and a second set of objects stored by the online social network that match the second query command; and generating one or more search results corresponding to one or more of the identified objects, respectively, each search result comprising a reference to the corresponding identified object, wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object from the first set of objects, and wherein at least one of the search results corresponds to an object from the second set of objects; as set forth in representative claim 1? Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 7 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–23) in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–5) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 4–10). With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Final Action (Final Act. 2–19) and Answer (Ans. 4–10). We provide the following explanation for emphasis only. Hansen Appellant contends that Hansen “does not disclose two separate queries with two different constraints for internal objects. In contrast, Claim 1 specifically recites first and second queries, each for ‘objects stored by the online social network’ (i.e., internal objects)” (Appeal Br. 9). However, neither the language of any of claims 1–47 nor the Specification recites “internal objects,” or that internal objects are objects stored by the online social network. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “My Social Networks” 664 in Figure 6 of Hansen teaches “an online social network” in claim 1 (Ans. 4–5). Furthermore, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hansen teaches in claim 1 “a first query command comprising a first query constraint for objects stored by the online social network” because searching Andrew Hansen on Facebook.com is first query command with constraint of searching on Facebook.com in My Social Networks (Ans. 4–5 citing Hansen, Figs. 6, 7; ¶¶ 86–89, 100). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hansen teaches, in claim 1, “a second query command comprising a second query constraint for objects stored by the online social network” because searching Andrew Hansen on LinkedIN.com is a second Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 8 query command with a constraint of searching on LinkedIN.com in My Social Networks (id.). Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner recognizes the first query constraint of Hansen is for external objects on the World Wide Web and the second query constraint is for internal objects in the private social network database” (Appeal Br. 9). However, nowhere in the Final Action and/or the Examiner’s Answer do the terms “external objects” and “internal objects” appear in the rejection, and thus Appellant’s argument misconstrues the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because they are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection as given in the Examiner’s Answer. Appellant for claim 1 further equates “internal objects” with objects stored by the online social network: “Claim 1 specifically recites first and second queries, each for ‘objects stored by the online social network’ (i.e. internal objects)” (Appeal Br. 9). Claim 1, in relevant part, simply recites “a first query command comprising a first query constraint for objects stored by the online social network,” and “a second query command comprising a second query constraint for objects stored by the online social network” (Appeal Br. 17, Claims Appendix). Thus, Appellant adds the phrase “internal objects” to claim 1, whereas the term “internal” is not present in claim 1 or any of the other independent claims under appeal. In any event, Appellant’s argument does not make clear how internal objects are the same as objects stored by the online social network. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive insofar as being incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 9 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that “‘My Social Networks’ search preference disclosed in Hansen is not an online social network as claimed” (Reply Br. 5). The Specification describes the social networking system: may provide search results that include results from both the user’s friends and publicly available posts (i.e., public posts from non–friends). . . . provide users with search results beyond what the user would have seen in his or her newsfeed by including public posts from the social–networking system, and may provide access to any public post. The search may not be limited to a user’s social network. Spec. ¶ 5. In light of the above, we find that the Examiner, interpreting “an online social network” under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, did not err in finding Hansen’s “My Social Networks” teaches the recited online social network (Ans. 5). Appellant contends that “searching Facebook and searching LinkedIN involves searching two separate online social networks. Hansen does not disclose two separate queries that both search the same online social network for objects with different privacy setting” (Reply Br. 5). However, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive, because Hansen, in Figure 6, teaches selection of one online social network with different query constraints in 692a, “Andrew Hansen on Facebook.com,” and 692c, “Ryan Noorda (as a friend of Andrew Hansen) on Facebook.com.” The Examiner relied upon the collective teachings of Hansen and Cionca (see Final Act. 4, 5). Cionca teaches using only one online social network (Cionca, Fig. 2; col. 20, ll. 31–67) and two privacy settings (Cionca, Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 10 col. 11, ll. 44–51; col. 13, ll. 39–51), and Hansen teaches two searches (Hansen, Fig. 6, 692). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have two privacy settings and two searches in one online social network because such a system improves the user experience and provides a comprehensive list of all items to the user (see Final Act. 5 citing Cionca, col. 1, ll. 16–33). Thus, Appellant’s contention supra, that Hansen fails to disclose two queries, is not persuasive. Appellant further contends that “at least one query of Hansen is for objects stored externally on the World Wide Web … [that] would not involve searching internal data stores of the online social network and would not identify internal objects stored on the online social network that match the query” (Appeal Br. 10). However, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hansen teaches multiple queries including first and second queries to My Social Networks with two different query constraints of Facebook.com and LinkedIN.com for user Andrew Hansen (see Ans. 5). Thus, Hansen teaches multiple query commands each with a query constraint including query command to Internet with constraint of searching just World Wide Web, another query command to My Social Networks searching Andrew Hansen on Facebook.com with constraint of searching on Facebook.com (692a), and a third query command to My Social Networks searching Andrew Hansen on LinkedIN.com with constraint of searching on LinkedIN.com (692b) (Hansen, Fig. 6). We also agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning that Hansen teaches, in Figures 6 and 7 and paragraphs 87 through 89 and 100, executing the query commands to identify a plurality of objects, wherein the identified objects comprise a first set of objects that match the first query command and second set of objects that match the second query command Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 11 and are stored by the online social network (see Ans. 7–8). Hansen, in Figure 6, clearly teaches that the search queries generate results, including Scott Hansen Facebook photo 610–614, and local result links 630 on a map 632 for biking (see Hansen ¶ 100) (teaching private social network data).3 Appellant also contends that Hansen does not disclose or suggest “generating results including at least one results that corresponds to an object from the first set of objects and at least one result that corresponds to an object from the second set of objects” (Appeal Br. 10). However, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning that Hansen teaches, in Figure 6 and as described in paragraph 100, generating results that corresponds to an object from a first set of objects such as Hansen Facebook photo 610–614, and other results that correspond to an object from a second set of objects such as local result links 630 on a map 632 for biking that paragraph 100 teaches as private social network data (see Ans. 8–9). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Hansen teaches that “items matching with Andrew Hansen on Facebook.com is the same as the first set of objects in claim [1], and the items matching with Andrew Hansen on LinkIN.com is the same as the second set of objects in claim [1]” (Ans. 9). Cionca Appellant contends that the “Examiner apparently relies on Cionca for disclosing objects on a social network having first and second privacy settings, and does not assert that Cionca discloses creating first and second search queries” (Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6). We emphasize that 3 “In one embodiment, the map 632 and/or links 642 can include private social network, nonsocial network data, or both” Hansen ¶ 100). Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 12 the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness is based upon the combined teachings of the cited references—here, Hansen and Cionca. Moreover, “‘the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also MPEP § 2123. In this light, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings and suggestions of Hansen and Cionca support the legal conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1 (see Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning (see generally Ans. 4–9) that Hansen, in Figures 6 and 7 and the accompanying description as given above, teaches or suggests the elements of claim 1, including: receiving a search query . . . of an online social network; generating a plurality of query commands . . . comprises: a first query command . . . for objects stored by the online social network; a second query command . . . for objects stored by the online social network; executing both the first and second query commands . . . wherein the identified objects comprise: a first set of objects stored by the online social network . . .; and a second set of objects stored by the online social network . . .; generating one or more search results . . . corresponds to an object from the second set of objects; and sending, responsive to the search query, . . . of the generated search results. Claim 1. As recognized by Appellant, “[the] Examiner apparently relies on Cionca for disclosing objects on a social network having first and second privacy settings” (Appeal Br. 11). We adopt the Examiner’s findings that Cionca teaches “objects stored by the online social network and having a Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 13 first privacy setting” and “objects stored by the online social network and having a second privacy setting, wherein the second privacy setting is more restrictive than the first privacy setting” (Final Act. 4–5). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s motivation given above for modifying Hansen with Cionca, namely to provide users a set of items as part of social networking experience that may include public and private items that are a comprehensive list of all items visible to the user (Final Act. 5 citing Cionca, col. 1, ll. 16–33). Appellant’s contention (Appeal Br. 11–12) that “the data storage of Cionca cannot be properly combined with the two searches of Hansen because it would render the searches of Hansen unsatisfactory for their intended purpose-i.e., separately searching within a social network and the World Wide Web outside a social network,” is not persuasive. Hansen, as described above, teaches searching of an online social network based on generating a plurality of query commands from a search query wherein the social network includes “My Social Networks” (Hansen Fig. 6). Hansen’s social networks include constraints such as searching posts of a user on Facebook.com and the same user on LinkedIN.com or other constraints such as searching the posts of friend of the user on Facebook.com (Hansen Fig. 6, “Ryan Noorda (as a friend of Andrew Hansen) on Facebook.com” 692c). And, as Appellant admits, Cionca’s system “generates multiple search indexes storing those items, for example, a public item index and a private item index” (Appeal Br. 10). Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Cionca fails to disclose objects as claimed, and we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cionca teaches objects stored by the online social network having first and second privacy settings, where the second privacy Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 14 setting is more restrictive than the first privacy setting as rejected by the Examiner (see Final Act. 5). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2–12, 14, 15, 17– 19, 21–36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 45–47 grouped therewith. Accordingly, the obviousness rejections all relying on the same base combination of Hansen in view of Cionca are sustained. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–36, 38, 39, 41–43, 45–47 103 Hansen, Cionca 1–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21– 36, 38, 39, 41–43, 45– 47 13, 37 103 Hansen, Cionca, Butterfield 13, 37 16, 40 103 Hansen, Cionca, Wong 16, 40 20, 44 103 Hansen, Cionca, Markus 20, 44 Overall Outcome 1–47 Appeal 2019-006919 Application 14/826,868 15 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation