Pike, Mark et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

13602685 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
13/602,685 09/04/2012 Mark Pike 26295-21136 7795
87851 7590 07/02/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK PIKE, YUANKAI GE, CHAD LITTLE
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–20.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 7 has been cancelled. Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 17 (Claims
Appendix).
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to computer-implemented methods for
identifying, storing, and using the relative preferences of users for objects
maintained in a social networking system. As background, the Specification
indicates that a conventional social networking system allows users to
express “a generalized preference for a product or service.” Spec. ¶ 3. The
Specification gives an example of how multiple restaurant preferences can
be identified but notes, however, that users cannot indicate how they prefer
“the restaurants relative to each other,” which limits the accuracy of the
information about the user in the system. Id.
In its detailed description of the invention, the Specification describes
selecting a group of objects connected to a user (such as an object associated
with a restaurant location where the user has checked-in and an object
associated with a restaurant to which the user previously checked-in) and
presenting the group with a prompt for the user to select an object from the
group via a client device. Spec. ¶¶ 17, 20. The user’s selection is
transmitted and stored in a social networking system as relative preference
information, which modifies the information associated with the user. Id.
¶¶ 21–22. Examples of such modifications include changed ranking of
advertisements and the user’s affinity for the objects in the group, which
may permit the social networking system to make suggestions for dinner
reservations or gift suggestions for the user to the user’s friends. Id. ¶¶ 22–
23.
The Specification describes a social networking system shown in
Figure 1, which is reproduced below. Spec. ¶¶ 17, 46.
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

3

Figure 1 above depicts an example of determining user relative preferences
for objects maintained in social network system 100. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 14. Social
network system 100 selects a group of objects (step 105) for user 102 and
presents the group (step 110) with selection interface 115, which displays
information 115A, 115B that is associated with each object along with a
prompt for selecting an object in the group. Id. ¶¶ 17, 20. The selected
object is transmitted (step 120) to social network system 100, which stores
data describing the relative preference information (step 125). Id. ¶ 21.
Based on the relative preference information, social network system 100
modifies information associated with user 102 (step 130). Id. ¶ 22.
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

4
The Specification also discusses ranking objects maintained in the
social network system for selection and presentation to additional users.
Spec. ¶¶ 23, 46–47.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
maintaining, by a social networking system, a plurality of user
profiles associated with users of the social networking system, the
plurality of user profiles including a user profile associated with a
viewing user that includes relative preference information for objects
selected by the viewing user;
maintaining, by the social networking system, a plurality of
objects and edge objects in a database, the edge objects describing
connections between the plurality of user profiles and the plurality of
objects in the social networking system;
receiving an action performed by the viewing user, the action
corresponding to a first object of the plurality of objects;
storing an edge object in the database between the user profile
associated with the viewing user and the first object, the edge object
having an edge object type corresponding to the action;
querying the database by the edge object type for the user
profile associated with the viewing user, the query returning
additional objects to which the action had previously been performed
on by the viewing user;
identifying, from the additional objects, a second object based
at least in part on the second object sharing one or more properties
with the first object;
selecting, by a computer processor of the social networking
system, a pair of objects for the user profile associated with the
viewing user, the pair of objects including the first object and the
second object;
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

5
presenting, via the user profile, the pair of objects together with
a prompt to select the first object or the second object for display to
the viewing user;
receiving a selection of an object from the pair of objects from
the viewing user;
storing the selection as a relative preference for the viewing
user with one or more additional relative preferences of the viewing
user in the social networking system as relative preference
information, the relative preference information identifying the
viewing user's preference for a user selected object from each
presented pair of objects and identifying an unselected object from
each presented pair of objects over which the user selected object was
selected by the viewing user;
associating the relative preference with the user profile
associated with the viewing user;
ranking, by the computer processor, one or more objects
including the pair of objects for presentation to an additional user
connected to the viewing user via the social networking system based
at least in part on the relative preference information;
selecting the user selected object instead of the unselected
object from the pair of objects for presentation to the additional user
based at least in part on the ranking and the relative preference
information; and
presenting the user selected object from the pair of objects to
the additional user via the social networking system.
Appeal Br. 14–15 (Appendix of Claims).
Claims 14 and 18 are similar independent claims, each of which also
is directed to a computer-implemented method. Appeal Br. 14–15 (claim 1
reciting “a plurality of user profiles” and “presenting . . . the pair of objects,”
among other limitations), 18–20 (claim 14 reciting “a user profile” and
“presenting . . . the group of objects,” among other limitations), 20–22
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

6
(claim 18 reciting “presenting . . . multiple pairs of objects,” among other
limitations).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rapaport et al. (I) US 8,539,359 B2 Sept. 17, 2013
Juan et al. US 2012/0166532 A1 June 28, 2012
Flinn et al. US RE44,968 E June 24, 2014
Rapaport et al. (II) US 2012/0290950 A1 Nov. 15, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for lacking adequate
written description. Final Act. 2–9.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–16, and 18–20 stand rejected by the Examiner
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapaport I,
Juan, and Flinn. Final Act. 11–35.
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected by the Examiner under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapaport I, Juan, Flinn, and
Rapaport II. Final Act. 36–37.
ANALYSIS
A. Written Description Requirement Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112
We agree with Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 2–
5) that claims 1–6 and 8–20 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, for lack of written description
support for reasons detailed below. The test for the sufficiency of written
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

7
description “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc). The written description requirement is not met if the specification
merely describes a “desired result.” Id. at 1349. “Whether a patent claim is
supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact.”
AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
759 F.3d 1285, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1355).
The Examiner concludes claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–16, and 18–20 lack
adequate written description associated with certain claim elements because
the Specification provides largely only ipsissimis verbis support for storing,
scoring, or ranking relative preference information for presentation to
additional users and provides inadequate elucidation on how to perform such
actions. Ans. 7 (citing ¶¶ 21–23, 26, 36–37, and 45–48). The Examiner
finds insufficient disclosure to demonstrate possession of the invention as
claimed and indicates that Appellant, “has merely expressed a wish without
sufficient detail for what essentially is a black box.” Id.
Appellant, however, contends that one of ordinary skill in the art of
computer programming in a social networking context would have been
convinced that the inventors “possessed the invention” based on sufficient
details found in the Specification, which includes a general description of
what relative preference information may be stored and specific examples
for structures and locations such as an “edge store” and a “content store” to
store relative preference information. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 3 (citing
¶¶ 30, 34). Similarly, Appellant contends the Specification provides written
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

8
description support for ranking relative preference information for
presentation to a viewing user or another connected user based upon affinity
modification, which also is disclosed in a patent application that is
incorporated by reference. Appeal Br. 7 (citing ¶ 35; Ser. No. 12/978,265);
Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant further cites to several examples detailed in the
Specification to support its position of sufficient written description.
Appeal Br. 7 (citing ¶¶ 21–22, 35–36, 45–47).
Therefore, Appellant concludes the claims have adequate written
description support in the Specification. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4–5.
Based on the examples disclosed in the Specification and the numerous
citations provided by Appellant, we agree with Appellant’s reasoning.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph.
B. Obviousness Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–16, and 18–20 stand rejected by the Examiner
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined
teaching of Rapaport I (“Social Networking Driven Indexing System for
Instantly Clustering People with Concurrent Focus on Same Topic into On-
topic Chat Rooms and/or For Generating On-topic Search Results Tailored
to User Preferences Regarding Topic”), Juan (“Contextually Relevant
Affinity Prediction in a Social Networking System”), and Flinn (“Adaptive
Self-modifying and Recombinant Systems”). Final Act. 11–35. Moreover,
dependent claims 4 and 17 stand rejected by the Examiner under § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combined teachings of Rapaport I, Juan, and Flinn,
taken in view of Rapaport II (“Social-topical Adaptive Networking (STAN)
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

9
System Allowing for Group Based Contextual Transaction Offers and
Acceptances and Hot Topic Watchdogging”). Final Act. 36–37.
1. Rejection Based on Rapaport I, Juan, and Flinn
In rejecting claim 1 under § 103, the Examiner relies on the combined
teaching of Rapaport I, Juan, and Flinn, but specifically relies on Rapaport I
for disclosing a social networking system with the computer-implemented
method steps including maintaining a plurality of objects and edge-objects in
a database along with a plurality of user profiles for matching users to
objects. Final Act. 11 (citing Rapaport I, cols. 132:13–62, 161:1–45,
claim(s) 1–8, 59). The Examiner further relies on Rapaport I for disclosing
method steps of receiving an action performed by a user, storing an edge
object describing a connection between an object and a user corresponding
to the action in a database, querying the database for additional objects
related to the user and action, and selecting a pair of objects. Final Act. 11–
13 (citing Rapaport I, Figs. 1A, 5A–B, cols. 132:13–62, 161:1–45, claim(s)
1–8, 59).
The Examiner relies on Flinn for suggesting the method step of
presenting the pair of objects with a prompt to a user. Final Act. 13
(citing Flinn, Figs. 1–45, col. 8). The Examiner indicates that Flinn uses
mechanisms of adaptive recommendation functions in order to facilitate the
adaptive learning of a system to a user’s changing needs, which ameliorates
problems of stale learning observed in prior learning systems. Id. The
Examiner also relies on Flinn for suggesting the method step of storing the
user’s selection as relative preference information, for instance by using a
survey regarding sets of objects. Id.
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

10
The Examiner notes that the remaining method steps are disclosed in
Juan, which teaches a supervised machine learning mechanism to train a
predictor function with “farmed actions” to determine relative measures of
affinity among sets of options provided to a user by presenting a statistically
significant number of users with several action options and monitoring the
user responses to said options. Final Act. 14–15 (citing Juan, Abstr., ¶¶ 4–7,
15, 21, 27–28, 36, 40).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Rapaport to include
relative preference information for objects and ranking of said
objects. One would have been motivated to include said
preference and ranking mechanisms to automatically provide a
benefit to a user and a user’s friends, including an option to join
a “cohesive”, social group.
Final Act. 15–16 (citing Juan, ¶¶ 15, 21, 27; Flinn, Abstr., col. 1:12–44).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s citations to the prior art do not
teach or suggest each and every claimed method step because the
Examiner’s reliance on Flinn is misplaced. Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 5–9.
Appellant acknowledges that Flinn generally discloses inferring preferences
of a user and in some cases obtaining preferences based upon “explicit
choices or designations made by the user” such as by a survey response.
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Flinn, col. 8). But Appellant contends none of the cited
references specifically teach or suggest the method step of presenting a pair
of objects to the user with a selection prompt, as recited by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5–6. Similarly, Appellant contends none of the
cited references teach or suggest the method step of storing the user’s
selection as relative preference information required by all independent
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

11
claims. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 6–7. Rather, according to Appellant,
Flinn focuses on “explicit preferences” and does not contain the concept of
an “unselected object” so that “relative preferences” are not taught or
suggested. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 9.
In response to Appellant’s challenge that none of the cited references
teach or suggest the method step of presenting a pair of objects to the user
with a selection prompt, the Examiner continues to rely on Flinn for this
limitation and maintains the finding:
Flinn, at least FIGs 1–45, COL 8, lines 1–67-COL 8, lines 1–673
[discloses]: presenting, to a viewing user an explicit solicitation
to elicit “explicit choices or designations made by the user”,
through elicitation of a user’s “response to a survey” regarding
“sets of objects”, through use of mechanisms of adaptive
recommendation functions, in order to facilitate the adaptive
learning of a system of a user’s changing needs, ameliorating
problems of stale learning observant in prior learning systems”,
the “pair of objects” congruent to the “set of objects” referenced
in Flinn, wherein a survey which may encapsulate these objects
would reasonably deduce the selection of one of the pair in the
systems adaptive learning system, said Column 8 referring to “[a]
response to a survey [being] ... one example where the explicit
preferences ... may be identified by the adaptive system.”
Ans. 8; see Final Act. 13 (citing “Flinn, at least FIGs 1–45, COL 8, lines 1–
67-COL 8, lines 1–67”) (emphasis omitted); see also Flinn, col. 9:1–67
(referring to Fig. 7 and disclosing, inter alia, “[a]s used herein, preferences
(whether explicit 252 or inferred 253) are distinguishable from interests

3 The Final Action and Answer each cite “Flinn, at least FIGs 1–45, COL 8,
lines 1–67-COL 8, lines 1–67.” Ans. 8; Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted).
Because the Answer quotes “set of objects” from column 9, line 18, we
understand the repeated typographical error to refer to “COL 8, lines 1–67-
COL 9, lines 1–67.”
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

12
(254) in that preferences imply a ranking (e.g. object A is better than object
B) while interests do not necessarily imply a ranking”).
Additionally, in response to Appellant’s challenge that none of the
cited references teach or suggest the method step of storing the user’s
selection as relative preference information, the Examiner maintains the
finding above and notes that the adaptive system of Flinn would learn or
arrive at a “derivation of inferred preferences” based on the objects which
were not selected from the “set of objects” based upon the disclosure of
“tracking” inferred preferences. Ans. 9 (citing Flinn, Fig. 7, col. 14:1–15).
For the reasons discussed in detail below, we agree with Appellant’s
arguments that Flinn fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the method steps of
presenting a pair of objects to the user with a selection prompt and storing
the user’s selection as “relative” preference information.
First, with regard to the presenting limitation in claim 1 that recites
“presenting, via the user profile, the pair of objects together with a prompt to
select the first object or the second object for display to the viewing user,”
the Examiner relies on the express description of (i) “explicit choices or
designations made by the user 200 during use of the adaptive system 100”
(Flinn, 8:55–57), (ii) a response to a survey as an example of identifying
explicit preferences 252 in Flinn’s adaptive recommendation function (8:59–
61), and (iii) making inferences and interpretations about the content within
sets of objects 232 within structural aspect 210 used within the adaptive
recommendations function (9:14–20; Figs. 1, 3A). Ans. 8; see Flinn, cols.
8:59–61 (“A response to a survey is one example where explicit preferences
252 may be identified by the adaptive system 100.”), 9:14–20 (“The
adaptive recommendations 250 may be augmented by automated inferences
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

13
and interpretations about the content within individual and sets of objects
232 using statistical pattern matching of words, phrases or representations,
in written or audio format, or in pictorial format, within the content.”).
Therefore, Examiner finds that Flinn discloses, teaches, or suggests that
user’s explicit preferences are elicited from “a user’s ‘response to a survey’
regarding ‘sets of objects,’ through use of mechanisms of adaptive
recommendation functions” and finds the claimed “pair of objects” to be
“congruent to the ‘set of objects’ referenced in Flinn.” Ans. 8.
In the portions relied on by the Examiner, however, Flinn describes
the content of individual and “sets of objects” 232 as being used to augment
adaptive recommendations 250 but does not teach or even suggest that sets
of objects 232 as being related to user’s explicit preferences elicited from a
user’s response to a survey. See, e.g., Flinn, cols. 8:1–9:67, Figs. 1, 3A, 5.
Thus, we find Flinn does not teach or suggest the required “response to a
survey” regarding “sets of objects.” Reply Br. 6 (citing Ans. 8).
Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner that Flinn discloses,
teaches, or suggests “presenting, via the user profile, the pair of objects
together with a prompt to select the first object or the second object for
display to the viewing user,” as recited by claim 1. Ans. 8.
Second, with regard to the storing limitation in claim 1 that recites
“storing the selection as a relative preference for the viewing user with one
or more additional relative preferences of the viewing user in the social
networking system as relative preference information, the relative preference
information identifying the viewing user’s preference for a user selected
object from each presented pair of objects and identifying an unselected
object from each presented pair of objects over which the user selected
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

14
object was selected by the viewing user,” the Examiner relies on the same
description from Flinn, as discussed above, and further relies on the express
description of (i) a block diagram of a public information framework used
by an adaptive system (Fig. 7), and (ii) privacy control 1152a that allows the
user “to enable or disable non-private cues 1150 and signals 1160 from
being used to infer preferences and interests. The adjusted level of privacy
may be with regard to the tracking of, or the forming of inferences from, the
cues 1150 or the signals 1160” (14:1–7). Ans. 8–9; see Flinn col. 14:1–15,
Fig. 7. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Flinn discloses, teaches, or
suggests that a system “which having learned which of the objects were not
selected from the ‘set of objects’ is able to learn or arrive at a ‘derivation of
inferred preferences’ by . . . ‘tracking’ of said preferences.” Ans. 8–9.
In the portions relied on by the Examiner discussed above with
respect to the presenting limitation and also relied on for the storing
limitation, the Examiner asserts that Flinn’s “mechanisms of adaptive
recommendation functions” teach or suggest presenting, to a viewing user an
elicitation of explicit choices or designations made by the user. Final
Act. 13–14. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has insufficiently
explained how Flinn’s description teaches or suggests the recited relative
preference information that identifies the selected object and the object that
was not selected. Appeal Br. 11.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner specifically points
to Flinn’s tracking of preferences noted above. Ans. 9 (describing Flinn
col. 14:1–15, Fig. 7). In the portions relied on by the Examiner, however,
Flinn describes a public information framework and privacy control 1152a
for tracking or forming inferences from cues 1150 or signals 1160 from user
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

15
200 but does not describe identifying which objects were not selected from a
set or sets of objects in order to derive, track, or infer preferences. See, e.g.,
Flinn, col. 14:1–15, Fig. 7. Moreover, we agree with Appellant that Flinn
does not teach or suggest a system that would “learn or arrive at a
‘derivation of inferred preferences’” based on learning “which of the objects
were not selected.” Reply Br. 7 (citing Ans. 8–9).
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner also points to
Flinn’s Figure 26 and portions of columns 46 and 47 as depicting the use of
collaborative or fuzzy networks to store explicit preferences. Ans. 9–10.
That Flinn describes inferences being derived from saved content objects
and from affinities of the saved objects to other content or topic objects does
not, without more explanation, teach or suggest the specific type of storing
required by the claim—storing a user selection as a relative preference that
identifies the user’s selected object and an unselected object from the
presented objects. See Ans. 10. Storing preference information is not
sufficient to teach or suggest the relative preference required by the claim—
identifying the user’s selected object and an unselected object from the
presented objects. See Ans. 10. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the
descriptions in Flinn of fuzzy networks on which the Examiner relies are
insufficient to teach or suggest an identification of “an unselected object . . .
over which the user selected object was selected,” as recited by the claim.
See Reply Br. 8–9.
For these reasons, we do not agree with the Examiner that Flinn
discloses, teaches, or suggests “storing the selection as a relative preference
for the viewing user with one or more additional relative preferences of the
viewing user in the social networking system as relative preference
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

16
information, the relative preference information identifying the viewing
user's for a user selected object from each presented pair of objects and
identifying an unselected object from each presented pair of objects over
which the user selected object was selected by the viewing user,” as recited
by claim 1. Ans. 8.
For these reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teaching of Rapaport I, Juan, and Flinn.
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 14, and 18 together. See
Appeal Br. 10, 12. Independent claims 14 and 18 recite similar limitations
to those discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. See id. All
three independent claims require “presenting via the user profile” objects
with a prompt to select the first or the second object.4 The Examiner
rejected this limitation, however, by relying on Juan instead of Flinn for
claims 14 and 18, which Appellant does not address. See, e.g., Appeal
Br. 10, Final Act. 26 (citing Juan, ¶¶ 5–7, 14–15, 21, 27–28, 36, 40), Final
Act. 31 (citing Juan, ¶¶ 5–7, 14–15, 21, 27–28, 36, 40). Moreover, in
contending the Examiner erred in rejecting the similar presenting limitations
in independent claims 14 and 18, Appellant relies on its argument that Flinn
does not teach or suggest the similar presenting limitations. Appeal Br. 10
(“Independent claims 14 and 18 recite similar elements, and the
corresponding rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are similarly

4 Claim 14 recites, “presenting, via the user profile, the group of objects to
the user with a prompt to select the first object or the second object” and
claim 18 recites, “presenting, via the user profile, multiple pairs of objects
selected form [sic] the plurality of pairs of objects to the viewing user with a
prompt to select the first object or the second object.” Appeal Br. 19, 21.
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

17
improper and should be similarly reversed.”). Because Appellant does not
acknowledge—much less persuasively address—the Examiner’s reliance on
Juan for the presenting limitations in claims 14 and 18, we do not agree that
these rejections should be reversed on this basis.
All three independent claims also contain similar ‘storing the
selection’ step limitations.5 Because the Examiner rejected this limitation by
relying on Flinn, we do not sustain the rejections of these independent
claims 14 and 18 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
‘storing the selection’ step limitation of independent claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 12, Final Act. 26–27 (citing Flinn, Figs. 1–45, Col. 8), Final Act. 31–32
(citing Flinn, Figs. 1–45, Col. 8).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–16, 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rapaport I, Juan, and Flinn.

5 Claim 14 recites, “storing the selection as a relative preference for the user
with one or more additional relative preferences of the viewing user in the
social networking system as relative preference information, the relative
preference information identifying the user's preference for a user selected
object from each presented group of objects and identifying at least one
unselected object in each presented group of objects over which the user
selected object was selected by the viewing user” and claim 18 recites,
“storing the selection as a relative preference for the viewing user with one
or more additional relative preferences of the viewing user in the social
networking system as relative preference information, the relative preference
information identifying, for each pair of objects, the viewing user's
preference for the user object selected from the pair of objects by the
viewing user and identifying an unselected object in the pair of objects over
which the user selected object was selected by the viewing user.” Appeal Br.
19, 21-22.
Appeal 2018-007541
Application 13/602,685

18
2. Rejection Based on Rapaport I, Juan, Flinn, and Rapaport II
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 relies on the combined teachings of Rapaport I, Juan, Flinn,
and Rapaport II. The Examiner relies on Rapaport II for its teachings related
to selecting advertisements based on bid amounts. Final Act. 36
(citing Rapaport II, ¶¶ 25, 785-86, 788-89).
Because Rapaport II does not remedy the deficiencies of Flinn, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Rapaport I, Juan, Flinn, and Rapaport II for the
same reasons described above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6 and 8–20 are REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §

References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–20 112 Written
Description
1–6, 8–20
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
16, 18–20
103 Rapaport I, Juan,
Flinn
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
16, 18–20
4, 17 103 Rapaport I, Juan,
Flinn, Rapaport
II
4, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–20

REVERSED