LENOVO Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) PTE. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

14597185 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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.
14/597,185 01/14/2015 Barry Alan Kritt XAUS920140331-US-NP 3815
61755 7590 07/23/2020
Kunzler Bean & Adamson - Lenovo
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
docket@kba.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BARRY ALAN KRITT and
SARBAJIT KUMAR RAKSHIT
____________________

Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL T. CYGAN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 seeks review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. Although Appellant appeals from a
non-final rejection, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and

1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the original
Specification, filed Jan. 14, 2015; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final Office
Action, mailed Jan. 11, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for Appellant’s Appeal Brief,
filed June 11, 2018; “Ans.” for Examiner’s Answer, mailed Sept. 21, 2018;
and “Reply Br.” for Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed Nov. 21, 2018.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) PTE Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

2
134(a) because the claims have been twice rejected. See Ex parte Lemoine,
46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
social networking service that gathers user-generated content, identifies a
cluster of content based on time and location information, and displays, on
an electronic map, a boundary that contains the cluster. Spec. ¶¶ 42–44;
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a content module that gathers user-generated content posted by
a plurality of users to a social networking service and relating to
one or more of an event and an activity, each item of user-
generated content comprising a time when the user generated
the user-generated content and a location where the user
generated the user-generated content;
a cluster module that identifies a cluster of related user-
generated content based on the time and location information of
the gathered user-generated content, the cluster comprising a
physical area on a map with a plurality of items of user-
generated content relating to one or more of a common event
and an activity that have a plurality of locations with a
geographically similar location;
an area module that determines a physical area on a map
containing the cluster of related user-generated content, the area
comprising a boundary around the perimeter of the area and
around the cluster;
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

3
a search module that receives a search query, the search query
related to one or more of the common event and activity of the
cluster; and
a map display module that, in response to receiving the search
query, presents, on an electronic map, the boundary for the
determined area,
wherein said modules comprise one or more of hardware
circuits, a programmable hardware device, and a processor
executing code stored in memory.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–8, 13–17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Ickman (US 2012/0136689 A1, published May 31,
2012) and Yuen (US 2013/0325394 A1, published Dec. 5, 2013). Non-Final
Act. 9–20.3
R2. Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Ickman, Yuen, and Norton (US 2011/0184768 A1, published
July 28, 2011). Non-Final Act. 21–23.
R3. Claims 10, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Ickman, Yuen, and Patton (US 2014/0095509 A1, published
April 3, 2014). Non-Final Act. 23–25.
R4. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Ickman, Yuen, Patton, and Norton. Non-Final Act. 25.

3 The rejection’s header does not identify claim 16 (Non-Final Act. 9), but
this appears to be a typographical error, as claim 16 is addressed in the body
of the rejection (id. at 16–17).
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

4
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Obviousness Rejection R1 of Claims 1–8, 13–17, and 20
Claim 1 recites “a content module that gathers user-generated content
posted by a plurality of users to a social networking service,” where “each
item of user-generated content compris[es] a time when the user generated
the user-generated content and a location where the user generated the user-
generated content.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphases added)
(italicized portion referred to in this Decision as the “disputed limitation”).
The Examiner found that Ickman discloses the disputed limitation.
Non-Final Act. 10–11 (citing Ickman ¶¶ 4–5, 22); see also id. at 4–5
(identifying same quotes and citations from Ickman). In particular, the
Examiner appeared to find that Ickman’s event invitations and suggestions
teach the “user-generated content.” See id. at 10. The Examiner also
appeared to find that the proposed or scheduled location for the event
teaches the “location” recited in claim 1. See id.
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because Ickman fails to
teach user-generated content that comprises a location where the user
generated the content. Appeal Br. 8, 10. Appellant explains that Ickman’s
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

5
location is a proposed location (for a future event), not the current location
of the user when generating the content:
Ickman does not teach gathering content posted by a
plurality of users to a social network regarding an event or
activity where each item of user-generated content includes a
time when the user generated the user-generated content and a
location where the user generated the user-generated content. As
stated above, Ickman teaches users proposing locations for an
event where the proposals may include a location. Ickman does
not teach that the location information is the location of where
the user-generated content was generated, but instead teaches a
proposed location for an event that has nothing to do with where
the user making the proposal is currently located. Yuen does not
make up the deficiencies of Ickman.
Id. at 10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8; Reply Br. 3. In the Answer, the
Examiner responds by merely repeating the rejection. Compare Ans. 8–9,
with Non-Final Act. 9–11.
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. In the Non-
Final Action, the Examiner relied on paragraphs 4, 5, and 22 of Ickman to
disclose the disputed limitation; however, the Examiner does not explain
(and we do not perceive) how these passages of Ickman teach or suggest
“user-generated content comprising . . . a location where the user generated
the user-generated content,” as required by claim 1.4 In particular, the cited
passages explain that Ickman allows collaborative event planning by a user
and potential guests, which is different from other social networks that do
not allow guests to provide and comment on suggested details for the event
(such as an event location). Ickman ¶¶ 4–5, 22. So while Ickman discloses

4 Indeed, the Examiner’s Answer does not appear to address the Appellant’s
arguments. See generally Ans. 4–11 (repeating Non-Final Office Action
without additional explanation).
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

6
event invitations and proposals (“user-generated content”) that include
location information, that location corresponds to a proposal for a future
location, not a location where the content was generated, as the claim
requires. As a result, Ickman’s proposed location for an event does not teach
the “location” required in claim 1.
The Examiner does not rely on other passages of Ickman or Yuen, so
we do not consider whether other aspects of these references could teach or
suggest the disputed limitation.5 In addition, the Examiner does not explain
why the disputed limitation would have been obvious, so we do not decide
whether it would have been obvious to modify the references to yield the
disputed limitation. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(requiring a “rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.6 Independent claims 15 and
20 recite the disputed limitation in commensurate form, and the Examiner
relies on Ickman in the same erroneous way. See Non-Final Act. 10–11.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection R1 of

5 While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b),
no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See
MPEP § 1213.02.
6 We do not address Appellant’s other arguments because our determination
resolves the § 103 rejection for all pending claims. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an
administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive
issue”).
Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

7
independent claims 1, 15, and 20, as well as their respective dependent
claims (i.e., claims 2–8, 13–14, and 16–17).
Obviousness Rejection R2–R4 of Claims 9–12 and 18–19
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 9–12 and 18–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as over a combination of Ickman and Yuen, along with
Patton and/or Norton. Non-Final Act. 21–25.
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1 and
15, supra, we also reverse obviousness rejections R2–R4 of dependent
claims 9–12 and 18–19, which depend from independent claims 1 and 15.
On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited
references, Patton and Norton, overcome the aforementioned deficiencies
with the combination of Ickman and Yuen, as discussed above regarding
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 13–
17, 20
103 Ickman, Yuen 1–8, 13–
17, 20
9, 11 103 Ickman, Yuen, Norton 9, 11
10, 12, 19 103 Ickman, Yuen, Patton 10, 12, 19
18 103 Ickman, Yuen, Patton,
Norton
18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

Appeal 2019-001211
Application 14/597,185

8
REVERSED