Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2020

2019004145 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
13/899,305 05/21/2013 Sandhya Kunnatur FACEP115 6266
107519 7590 10/19/2020
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND FACEBOOK, INC.
10050 N. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
Suite 200
Cupertino, CA 95014
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2020 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDHYA KUNNATUR, SOREN BOGH LASSEN,
MICHAEL CURTISS, and PILIP PRONIN
Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
Technology Center 2100

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19–24.
See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction 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. 3.
Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
2
RELATED APPEAL
As Appellant notes, the following application relates to this
application and is also on appeal: U.S. Patent Application No. 13/899,353,
filed May 21, 2013 (Appeal No. 2019-004146). Appeal Br. 3.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a search algorithms. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
by a top aggregator of a social-networking system,
receiving an update of user activity associated with one or more
content objects associated with a search term that has been
parsed from a search query by the top aggregator, the user
activity comprising one or more interactions by one or more
users of an online social network with one or more content
objects, wherein the content objects are of a plurality of
different content-object types, and wherein each content object
is indexed by a first partition aggregator of the social-
networking system on a particular index server of a plurality of
index servers;
by the top aggregator, responsive to receiving the update,
indexing the one or more content objects on an update layer on
a particular index server of a plurality of index servers, wherein
each of the index servers stores a list of identifier information
corresponding to content objects of a single content-object type
of the plurality of different content-object types, and wherein
the update layer indexes recent activity and comprises identifier
information of the one or more content objects associated with
the update;
by a second partition aggregator of the social-networking
system associated with the update layer of the particular index
server, determining whether the search term has a number of
associated content objects indexed on the update layer of the
particular index server exceeding a pre-determined threshold
number, wherein the pre-determined threshold number is
Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
3
determined based on the content-object type of the content
objects associated with the particular index server; and
by the second partition aggregator, at one or more pre-
determined times, promoting the identifying information from
the update layer to a base layer, wherein the base layer indexes
activity previously indexed by the top aggregator on the update
layer and comprises identifying information of only a single
content-object type, and wherein the base layer comprises
identifier information of one or more other content objects of
the single content-object type previously associated with the
search term.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bennett US 2009/0144260 A1 June 4, 2009
Cao US 2010/0161617 A1 June 24, 2010
LaCroix US 2003/0074256 A1 April 17, 2003
REJECTIONS
In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 3–5,
7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19–24 are rejected under non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–20 of co-pending application 13/899,353. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19–24 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, Bennett, and LaCroix. Final
Act. 19.

Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
4
OPINION
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19–24 are rejected under non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–20 of co-pending application 13/899,353. Final Act. 12–13.
Appellant does not traverse this rejection (Appeal Br. 6), and we therefore,
sustain the rejection. 2

Obviousness
Appellant argues, in part, that the proposed Cao-Bennett-LaCroix
combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest “promoting the identifying
information from the update layer to a base layer.” Appeal Br. 14–16. In
particular, Appellant argues that LaCroix merely discloses delivering
“promotions” to cable television set-top boxes. Id. In the Answer, the
Examiner repeats that LaCroix specifies the timing of promotion delivery to
transmission groups. Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the cited “promotions” of LaCroix are
advertisements for goods and services that are presented on video broadcast
programming. LaCroix ¶ 28. Although the Examiner points to various
paragraphs of LaCroix (Ans. 6); for example, specifying the timing of
delivery to transmission groups (Ans. 6), on this record, the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how the cited portions of LaCroix teach the

2 The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection remains effective
because co-pending application U.S. 13/899,305 is still pending and has the
same effective U.S. filing date of May 21, 2013. See MPEP
1490(VI)(D)(2)(b).
Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
5
claimed “promoting the identifying information from the update layer to a
base layer,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, constrained as we are by the record before us, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under § 103. For the same
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17,
and 19–24.
CONCLUSION
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, we affirm the decision rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–17, and 19–24.
In particular, the Examiner’s rejection of the pending claims under
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of co-pending
application 13/899,353 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–17, and
19–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 19–24
Double Patenting 1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 19–24

1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 19–24
103 Cao, Bennett,
LaCroix
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 19–24
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 19–24

Appeal 2019-004145
Application 13/899,305
6
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED