Microsoft Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2021

2020000429 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 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.
14/507,763 10/06/2014 Bangyong Liang 337359-US-CNT 3046
69316 7590 07/08/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BANGYONG LIANG, JU LIANG, JIN JIANG,
and XIAOSONG YANG
________________

Appeal 2020-000429
Application 14/507,763
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 16‒35, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000429
Application 14/507,763

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to identifying content that may be
relevant or interesting to users. Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, Appellant’s
application describes location-aware content detection, where content is
selectively ranked based on various factors, including how interesting users
in a particular region may find the content. Id. Claim 16 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
16. A computer implemented system for location-aware
content detection, the system comprising a processor and a
memory, and further comprising:
an executable grouping component stored in the memory
and, when executed on the processor, is configured to:
group a set of content into a plurality of content
clusters;
identify a plurality of topics from the plurality of
content clusters, wherein each identified topic is
identified from content of any one content cluster of the
plurality of content clusters; and
generate a plurality of topic clusters corresponding
to the plurality of identified topics, wherein each topic
cluster comprises at least some of the content of the
corresponding content cluster from which the topic of the
topic cluster was identified; and
an executable ranking component stored in the
memory and, when executed on the processor, is
configured to:
assign a local ranking to each topic of the
plurality of topic clusters based upon an
importance of the topic of the topic cluster to one
or more users within a local region.
Appeal 2020-000429
Application 14/507,763

3

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 16‒35 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Flinn (US 2012/0290518 A1; Nov. 15, 2012) and
Druzgalski (US 2010/0083124 A1; Apr. 1, 2010). Final Act. 2‒18.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Flinn and Druzgalski teaches
or suggests an executable grouping component stored in memory that, when
executed, is configured to “generate a plurality of topic clusters
corresponding to the plurality of identified topics, wherein each topic cluster
comprises at least some of the content of the corresponding content cluster
from which the topic of the topic cluster was identified.” See Final Act. 3
(citing Flinn ¶ 71); Ans. 8‒9 (citing Flinn ¶¶ 57‒59, 70, 71). In particular,
the Examiner finds Flinn teaches “[t]opics would be generated and clustered
based on a user profile in order to provide relevant content.” Ans. 9.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 16 because the
cited portions of Flinn do not teach or suggest generating topic clusters
“wherein each topic cluster comprises at least some of the content of the
corresponding content cluster.” See Appeal Br. 13‒15; Reply Br. 2‒4. In
particular, Appellant argues Flinn teaches topics that are merely labels for a
class of information. Reply Br. 2 (citing Flinn ¶ 49). Appellant argues these
labels do not comprise “at least some of the content of the corresponding
content cluster,” as claimed. Id. at 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner
does not address this argument in the Answer and that the Examiner’s
findings are conclusory and unsupported by the record. Id.
Appeal 2020-000429
Application 14/507,763

4

Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. In the Final Action, the
Examiner finds Flinn teaches the disputed limitation with no explanation
other than a quotation from Flinn, paragraph 71. See Final Act. 3. In
response to Appellant’s argument that Flinn does not teach the disputed
limitation, the Examiner expands the quotation to include paragraphs 57‒59
and 70, and states “[t]opics would be generated and clustered based on a
user profile in order to provide relevant content.” Ans. 8‒9. However, the
Examiner offers no explanation as to how topics being “generated and
clustered” teaches or suggests topics “comprising at least some of the
content of the corresponding content cluster,” as claimed.
Flinn teaches topic objects operate as labels to a class of information.
Flinn ¶ 49. Topic objects refer to themselves and to the relationships they
have with other objects, but do not include other information. Id.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Flinn’s topics operate as labels
and do not comprise “at least some of the content of the corresponding
content cluster from which the topic of the topic cluster was identified.” For
these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 16.2
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 16. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 21 and
29, which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 17‒20, 22‒28, and 30‒35.

2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2020-000429
Application 14/507,763

5

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–35 103(a) Flinn, Druzgalski 16–35

REVERSED