Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2020

2019004206 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020)

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.
14/304,596 06/13/2014 Thomas E. Jackson 079894.2050 6833
168743 7590 11/30/2020
Jordan IP Law, LLC (Facebook)
12501 PROSPERITY DRIVE
SUITE 401
SILVER SPRING, MD 20904
EXAMINER
LIN, ALLEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2020 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 THOMAS E. JACKSON and LI-TAL MASHIACH
___________

Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–11, 13–17, 19, and 20. Final Act. 4, 11. Claims
12 and 18 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending 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(a). According to Appellant, the real parties in interest is
Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Disclosed embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate to “social
graphs and performing searches for objects within a social-networking
environment.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising, by one or more computing
devices:
receiving, at one or more of the computing devices from
a client system of a user of an online social network, a query
inputted by the user;
identifying, by one or more of the computing devices, a
set of objects associated with the online social network that
match the query;
calculating, by one or more of the computing devices, for
each identified object of the set of objects, a plurality of scores
for the identified object corresponding to a plurality of scoring
axes, respectively, wherein the score for the identified object
for each scoring axis is calculated based at least in part on a
factor associated with the respective scoring axis that is
evaluated with respect to the identified object;
calculating, by one or more of the computing devices, a
plurality of threshold scores for the plurality of scoring axes,
respectively, the plurality of threshold scores being calculated
with respect to the identified objects of the set of objects,
wherein the threshold score for each scoring axis of the
plurality of scoring axes is statistically determined based at
least in part on a standard deviation of the calculated scores
corresponding to the scoring axis for the identified objects from
a mean of the calculated scores corresponding to the scoring
axis for the identified objects;

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed March 20, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Answer,
mailed March 8, 2019 (“Ans.”), Reply Brief, filed May 3, 2019 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

3
filtering, by one or more of the computing devices, for
each scoring axis, identified objects from the set of objects
associated with a score for the scoring axis below the threshold
score for the scoring axis;
generating, by one or more of the computing devices, one
or more search results corresponding to one or more of the
identified objects remaining in the post-filtered set of objects,
respectively, each search result comprising a reference to a
corresponding identified object; and
sending, from one or more of the computing devices to
the client system, responsive to the query, one or more search
results for display to the user.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.), (emphasis added to disputed limitations).
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Denise US 7,797,635 B1 Sept. 14, 2010
Chitiveli et al. (“Chitiveli”) US 2011/0004609 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
Luo et al. (“Luo”) US 2011/0022602 A1 Jan. 27, 2011
Panyam et al. (“Panyam”) US 2012/0110080 A1 May 3, 2012
Covell et al. (“Covell”) US 8,209,330 B1 June 26, 2012
Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2013/0124538 A1 May 16, 2013
Softky US 2014/0304429 A1 Oct. 9, 2014
Kadarkarai US 2015/0193530 A1 July 9, 2015
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

4
Rejections on Appeal3
A. Claims 1, 5–9, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise,
and Kadarkarai. Final Act. 4–11.
B. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, and Lee.
Final Act. 11–12.
C. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, and Panyam.
Final Act. 12–13.
D. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, and
Chitiveli. Final Act. 13–14.
E. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, and Softky.
Final Act. 14.
F. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, and Covell.
Final Act. 14–16.
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of Rejection A of claims 1,
5–9, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the § 101 rejection. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

5
representative claim 1. We separately address Rejections B, C, D, E, and F
of claims 2–4, 10, 13, 15, and 16, not separately argued, infra.4
ANALYSIS
In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections in the Final Action, and the
Examiner’s responses in the Answer to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree
with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, and all other argued
claims, and, unless otherwise noted, regarding these claims, we incorporate
by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and
(2) the reasons and explanations set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

4 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

6
Rejection A under § 103 of Claim 1
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by finding the
cited prior art combination of Luo, Denise, and Kadarkarai teaches or
suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of . . .
calculating, by one or more of the computing devices, a
plurality of threshold scores for the plurality of scoring axes,
respectively, the plurality of threshold scores being calculated
with respect to the identified objects of the set of objects,
wherein the threshold score for each scoring axis of the
plurality of scoring axes is statistically determined based at
least in part on a standard deviation of the calculated scores
corresponding to the scoring axis for the identified objects from
a mean of the calculated scores corresponding to the scoring
axis for the identified objects;
filtering, by one or more of the computing devices, for
each scoring axis, identified objects from the set of objects
associated with a score for the scoring axis below the threshold
score for the scoring axis,
within the meaning of independent claim 1 (emphasis added)?5
Analysis
Appellant argues Denise does not
disclose, teach, or suggest a plurality of scoring axes, let alone
filtering, by one or more of the computing devices, for each
scoring axis, identified objects from the set of objects
associated with a score for the scoring axis below the
threshold score for the scoring axis. Furthermore, filtering a
list of search results, as disclosed in Denise, is not equivalent to
filtering for each scoring axis of a plurality of scoring axes.
Appeal Br. 15.

5 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

7
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant is
arguing the references separately when the rejection is for obviousness based
upon what the reference combination would have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner cites Luo, not Denise, for teaching or suggesting “a
plurality of scoring axis” and “calculating . . . a plurality of scores for the
identified object corresponding to a plurality of scoring axes.” Final Act. 5,
Ans. 3–4. The Examiner cites Denise for teaching filtering objects
associated with a score below a threshold. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings because Denise’s filtering search results
associated with relevancy ratings that are below a threshold teaches or at
least suggests “filtering . . . identified objects from the set of objects
associated with a score for the scoring axis below the threshold score for the
scoring axis.” See Denise, col. 36, ll. 33–61.
Appellant next argues against the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Denise and Luo contending “[a]pplying Denise to Luo would result in
filtering a search result based on its overall calculated score – i.e., a single
relevancy score – not filtering with respect to each individual scoring axis
used to calculate an overall score.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).
However, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of these references. Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

8
for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The Supreme Court further guides
that “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 402.
Appellant also argues:
Kadarkarai does not disclose, teach, or suggest a standard
deviation of the calculated scores corresponding to the scoring
axis for the identified objects. The Examiner asserts that the
number of emails in a cluster is equivalent to calculated scores
for a single identified object because it is “a scoring axis or a
way to measure the relevancy of a cluster.” (Office Action at
17.) Even assuming this were true, a scoring axis for a cluster is
not equivalent to a scoring axis for each identified object in the
cluster. Neither Luo nor Denise make up for the deficiencies of
Kadarkarai and the Examiner does not assert otherwise.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant is
arguing the references separately when the rejection is for obviousness based
upon what the reference combination would have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner cites Luo, not Kadarkarai, for teaching or at least
suggesting “scoring axis that is evaluated with respect to the identified
object.” Final Act. 4–5, Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Kadarkarai for teaching
that a threshold score is based on a number of standard deviations. Final
Act. 7, Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Kadarkarai’s
threshold being based on one or more statistical parameters with respect to
the number of relevant messages in each respective cluster of the set of
clusters of standard deviations teaches or at least suggests
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

9
wherein the threshold score for each scoring axis of the
plurality of scoring axes is statistically determined based at
least in part on a standard deviation of the calculated scores
corresponding to the scoring axis for the identified objects from
a mean of the calculated scores corresponding to the scoring
axis for the identified object.
See Kadarkarai, ¶ 61.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Luo, Denise, and Kadarkarai teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection A of independent claim 1, and
grouped claims 5–9, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20, which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
Rejections B, C, D, E, F under § 103 of Claims 2–4, 10, 13, 15, and 16
In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to
obviousness Rejections B, C, D, E, and F of claims 2–4, 10, 13, 15, and 16
under § 103 (see Appeal Br. 17–19), we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–11, 13–17, 19, and 20
as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-004206
Application 14/304,596

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Rej. Claims Rejected
35 U.S.
C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
A
1, 5–9, 11,
14, 17, 19,
20
103 Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai
1, 5–9, 11,
14, 17, 19,
20

B 2, 3 103 Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, Lee 2, 3
C 4 103
Luo, Denise,
Kadarkarai,
Panyam
4
D 10 103
Luo, Denise,
Kadarkarai,
Chitiveli
10
E 13 103 Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, Softky 13
F 15, 16 103 Luo, Denise, Kadarkarai, Covell 15, 16
Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–17, 19, 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED