Reinhard P. Klemm et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 21, 2020

13928532 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
13/928,532 06/27/2013 Reinhard P. Klemm 513048-US-
NP/AVA069PA
2262
136582 7590 02/21/2020
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
FAN, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2020 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte REINHARD P. KLEMM and DOREE DUNCAN SELIGMANN
________________

Appeal 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒3 and 5‒20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 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 the real party in interest as Avaya Inc.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to tracking usage of social networks,
particularly analyzing sequences of user action on social networking sites.
Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. An event selection system for computing user migration
patterns across social network pages, the event selection system
comprising:
a memory device, the memory device storing executable
instructions;
a processor in communication with the memory device,
wherein the processor when executing the executable
instructions:
monitors predetermined activities of a plurality of
social media users while visiting a predetermined set of
webpages comprising a plurality of webpages within a
social networking site;
builds a social media user profile for each user
based on the monitored activities of the social media users;
based on the social media user profiles, computes
user migration patterns across two or more webpages of
the predetermined set of webpages; and
drives a display of the user migration patterns on a
system user terminal.

The Examiner’s Rejections2
Claims 1, 2, 13‒17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berezecki (US 2013/0132484 A1; May

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner
Appeal 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532

3
23, 2013), Newton (US 2011/0314142 A1; Dec. 22, 2011), and Heck (US
2009/0164395 A1; June 25, 2009). Final Act. 6‒15.
Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, and Abrams (US 7,069,308 B2;
June 27, 2006). Final Act. 16‒17.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, and McCorkindale, A content
analysis of the Fortune 50’s Facebook social networking sites, Public
Relations Journal Vol. 4, No. 3 (2010). Final Act. 17‒18.
Claims 6‒9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, and Feng (US 2012/0047219
A1; Feb. 23, 2012). Final Act. 18‒21.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, Feng, and Prahlad (US
7,346,751 B2; Mar. 18, 2008). Final Act. 21.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, Feng, Abrams, and Craig (US
2008/0104495 A1; May 2, 2008). Final Act. 21‒22.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Berezecki and Newton
teaches a processor with executable instructions that “monitors
predetermined activities of a plurality of social media users while visiting a
predetermined set of webpages comprising a plurality of webpages within a
social networking site.” Ans. 9.

withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 3‒4. Accordingly, this rejection
is not before us.
Appeal 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532

4
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the combination of
references does not teach or suggest a processor that “monitors
predetermined activities of a plurality of social media users while visiting a
predetermined set of webpages comprising a plurality of webpages within a
social networking site.” Appeal Br. 12‒14, Reply Br. 2‒6. In particular,
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Newton is misplaced because
Newton teaches monitoring user activities after the users navigate away
from a social networking site to a commercial, non-social networking site.
Appeal Br. 13 (citing Newton ¶¶ 2, 6, 41). Appellant argues Berezecki also
does not teach the required monitoring because Berezecki monitors network
traffic and device locations, not which webpages a user visits while they are
logged into a network or at a particular location. Reply Br. 4 (citing
Berezecki ¶¶ 3, 46‒50).
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has not
explained how an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Berezecki’s and
Newton’s teachings to achieve the claimed “monitors” step. See Ans. 9
(citing Berezecki ¶¶ 3, 14, 17; Newton Abs.). Berezecki teaches monitoring
devices that are running a social media application, but this monitoring
relates to the device’s geographic location and networks that the device
accesses, not activities within a plurality of pages in a social networking site.
See Berezecki ¶¶ 3, 14, 17. Newton teaches monitoring user activities in
commercial sites and tracking the referrer URL of sites, such as social
networking sites, through which the commercial website is accessed. See
Newton Abs. Neither reference teaches monitoring activities of users while
visiting a social networking site, let alone a predetermined set of webpages
comprising a plurality of webpages within a social networking site. The
Appeal 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532

5
Examiner has not sufficiently established that these references, alone or in
combination, teach monitoring activities “of social media users while
visiting a predetermined set of webpages comprising a plurality of webpages
within a social networking site” as recited in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner
has failed to establish that Berezecki, Newton, and Heck, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1.3 We also do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 17 and 20, which recite commensurate
subject matter, or dependent claims 2, 13‒16, and 19.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5‒12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Berezecki, Newton, Heck, and a combination of
additional references. Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not
shown the additionally cited secondary references overcome the deficiency
discussed above for independent claims 1, 17, and 20. See Final Act. 16‒22.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5‒12,
and 18 for the same reasons.

3 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 2018-008851
Application 13/928,532

6
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 13‒17,
19, 20
103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck
1, 2, 13‒17,
19, 20
3, 18 103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck, Abrams
3, 18
5 103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck,
McCorkindale
5
6‒9, 11 103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck, Feng
6‒9, 11
10 103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck, Feng, Prahlad
10
12 103(a) Berezecki, Newton,
Heck, Feng,
Abrams, Craig
12
Overall
Outcome
1‒3, 5‒20

REVERSED