Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01833/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01833-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jagadeshwar Reddy Nomula
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: JAGADESHWAR REDDY NOMULA,

Appellant

______________________

2019-1832, 2019-1833

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 13/089,772, 

13/908,992.

______________________

Decided: May 12, 2020

______________________

JUNDONG MA, Jdm Patent Law PLLC, Columbia, MD, 

for appellant. 

 MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, MEREDITH HOPE 

SCHOENFELD. 

 ______________________

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2020
2 IN RE: NOMULA

Jagadeshwar Reddy Nomula filed U.S. Patent Application Nos. 13/908,992 and 13/089,772, which claim systems 

and methods for recommending gifts using Internet-based

information of the gift recipient. The examiner rejected all 

pending claims as unpatentable for obviousness, and the

Board upheld the examiner’s obviousness rejections. We 

affirm. 

I

The ’992 application is a continuation of the ’772 application. The applications claim methods and systems for

recommending to a first social-network user gifts for a second user of the same social network based on information 

about social networking or ecommerce activity of the latter 

(the “recipient”). Use of the claimed systems or methods

begins with authentication of the user’s own membership 

in an online social network. Then a first element—a user 

interface—allows the user to select a friend in that social 

network as a gift recipient. A second element collects and 

aggregates the recipient’s social networking or ecommerce 

activity information and analyzes it in order to recommend 

potential gifts for that person. 

Claim 1 of the ’992 application and claim 21 of the ’772 

application are representative for purposes of the appeal:

1. A method, performed by a computer system, for recommending to a first user of targeted 

gifts for a second user in an online social network 

of the first user, the first user operating a user terminal, the online social network of the first user established through a social networking platform 

communicable to both the computer system and the 

user terminal, the computer system having access 

to a database storing ecommerce activity information of each of a plurality of system users, the 

ecommerce activity information of each user 

adapted to identify prior activities which the respective user has conducted on at least one 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2020
IN RE: NOMULA 3

ecommerce website coupled to the database, the 

method comprising steps of: 

sending, by the computer system, a first set of 

instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a first user interface (UI), the first UI containing one or 

more UI elements allowing the first user to 

authenticate to the social networking platform using the first user interface as a way 

for the first user to sign-up with or authenticate into the computer system; 

receiving, by the computer system, social network information of the first user from the 

social networking platform after the first 

user successfully authenticates to the social 

network platform, the received social network information including information 

about the second user; 

sending, by the computer system, a second set 

of instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a second UI, the 

second UI listing the second user as a selectable recipient for receiving one or more 

gift items from the first user; 

receiving, by the computer system, selection information from the user terminal, the selection information indicating that the second 

user is selected by the first user as a recipient to receive one or more gifts from the 

first user; 

receiving, by the computer system, social network information of the second user from 

the social networking platform,

determining, by the computer system, whether 

the database stores ecommerce activity 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 05/12/2020
4 IN RE: NOMULA

information of the second user as one of the 

plurality of system users, using the received social network information of the 

second user; 

retrieving, when ecommerce activity information of the second user is determined to 

be present in the database, ecommerce activity information of the second user, and 

deciding one or more potential gift items for 

the second user using at least the retrieved 

ecommerce activity information of the second user; and 

sending, by the computer system, a third set of 

instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a third UI, the 

third UI listing the decided one or more potential gift items as selectable for purchase 

for the second user.

J.A. 401–02.

21. A method, performed by a computer system, for recommending to a first user of targeted 

gifts for a second user linked to the first user 

through a first online social networking platform, 

the first user operating a user terminal, the user 

terminal comprising a network-capable computing 

device having a display screen to display graphical 

user interfaces, the first online social networking 

platform having at least one server adapted to perform online social networking services for users 

thereof, the computer system comprising a processor, a system memory, and a network interface device (NID) adapted to enable the computer system 

to communicate to both the user terminal and the 

first online social networking platform, the method 

comprising the steps of: 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 05/12/2020
IN RE: NOMULA 5

sending, by the computer system, a first set of 

instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a first user interface (UI), the first UI enabling the first user 

to authenticate to the first online social networking platform as a way for the first user 

to sign-up with or authenticate into the 

computer system; 

receiving, by the computer system, social network information of the first user from the 

first online social networking platform after the first user successfully authenticates 

to the first online social networking platform, the received social network information including information about friends 

in a social network of the first user in the 

first online social networking platform; 

sending, by the computer system, a second set 

of instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a second UI, the 

second UI enabling the first user to select 

one or more friends in the first user’s social 

network for whom the first user wishes to 

purchase one or more gifts; 

receiving, by the computer system, giftee selection information from the user terminal, 

the giftee selection information indicating 

that the second user is among the selected 

one or more friends for whom the first user 

wishes to purchase one or more gifts; 

receiving, by the computer system, aggregated 

social network information of the second 

user aggregated from one or more online social networking platforms; 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 5 Filed: 05/12/2020
6 IN RE: NOMULA

processing and analyzing, by the computer system, the received aggregated social network information of the second user, and 

recommending one or more potential gift 

items for the second user using the received 

aggregated social network information of 

the second user; and 

sending, by the computer system, a third set of 

instructions to the user terminal for the 

user terminal to display a third UI, the 

third UI presenting the recommended one 

or more potential gift items as selectable by 

the first user for purchase for the second 

user.

J.A. 921–22.

The examiner rejected pending claims 1–4, 6–14, and 

16–22 of the ’992 application and pending claims 21–32 and 

39–46 of the ’772 application as unpatentable for obviousness. As relevant in this appeal, the examiner relied on the 

combination of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0189188 

(Morgenstern) and U.S. Patent Publication No.

2008/0294624 (Kanigsberg).1 Nomula appealed the examiner’s rejections to the Board pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 134(a).2 

The Board affirmed the examiner’s obviousness rejections. Ex parte Nomula, No. 2017-011126, 2019 WL 

1255499, *7–12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019) (’992 Decision); Ex 

1 Although the examiner also relied on U.S. Patent 

Publication No. 2009/0222329 (Ramer) in rejecting some 

claims, Nomula has made no arguments to this court about 

that reference, so we do not address it.

2 The examiner also rejected the same claims under 

35 U.S.C. § 101, but the Board reversed those rejections. 

No § 101 issue is before us.

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 6 Filed: 05/12/2020
IN RE: NOMULA 7

parte Nomula, No. 2017-011325, 2019 WL 1255500, *7–10 

(P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019) (’772 Decision); J.A. 14–25, 39–45.3 

The Board agreed with the examiner that Morgenstern and 

Kanigsberg together teach all claim elements relevant to 

Nomula’s present appeal. The Board found that Morgenstern teaches a system that allows a user to input the name 

of a recipient into a gift module, which, after verifying that 

the recipient is a member of an online social network, recommends gifts (“assets”) for the recipient. ’992 Decision, 

2019 WL 1255499, at *8; J.A. 17–18 (citing J.A. 1025, 1027, 

1030, 1043–46). The Board also found that the Morgenstern system displays gifts already received by the recipient so that the user can choose to give either accessories for 

a displayed gift (e.g., headphones if the recipient has an 

IPOD) or a non-duplicative gift. ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 

1255499, at *9; J.A. 19–20 (citing J.A. 1041, 1044); see J.A. 

1025–26, 1030–31. Additionally, Morgenstern discloses 

making gift recommendations based on the recipient’s 

known affinity for certain assets. ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 

1255499, at *8; J.A. 17–18 (citing J.A. 1044). 

The Board further found that Kanigsberg teaches using a social-network user’s social networking or ecommerce 

activity information to make recommendations. ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at *10; J.A. 20. Kanigsberg describes a system and method for generating advertising 

recommendations, including in an ecommerce environment, based on interest information, keyword terms, and 

prior product ratings from users’ social-networking profiles. Id. (citing J.A. 1096); see J.A. 1050, 1099. The Board 

found that combining Morgenstern with Kanigsberg would 

yield “no more than a predictable result to one skilled in 

the art” and would teach all claim elements relevant to 

3 The Board’s decisions are substantively the same 

for purposes of this appeal. For simplicity, we cite only the 

’992 Decision.

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 7 Filed: 05/12/2020
8 IN RE: NOMULA

Nomula’s appeal.4 ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at *10; 

J.A. 20.

Nomula timely appealed the Board’s decisions to this 

court under 35 U.S.C. § 141(a), and we consolidated the appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4). 

II

“We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determination de novo and underlying factual findings for substantial evidence.” In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). Among the factual determinations in an obviousness analysis are “findings as to the scope and content of 

the prior art.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 

805 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Nomula argues that the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that the combination of Morgenstern and 

Kanigsberg discloses (1) a user interface allowing a user to 

select a recipient in the user’s social network, (2) collecting 

and using the recipient’s aggregated social networking or 

ecommerce activity information to recommend gifts for the 

recipient, and (3) determining whether the recipient’s aggregated information is stored in a database. We disagree.

There is substantial-evidence support for the Board’s 

finding that Morgenstern teaches what Nomula identifies 

as the first claimed element—a user interface that allows 

a user to select a gift recipient in the user’s social network.5 

4 Nomula does not challenge the Board’s finding of a 

motivation to combine Morgenstern with Kanigsberg with 

a reasonable expectation of success, so we do not discuss 

that aspect of the Board’s analysis.

5 Nomula notes several claim limitations implicating 

this first element, though he identifies only the following 

limitations as “key”: “receiving . . . social network information of the first user from the social networking 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 8 Filed: 05/12/2020
IN RE: NOMULA 9

See ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at *8; J.A. 17–18. 

Morgenstern starts from the premise that users have devices that “are coupled to a social network provider . . . via 

a communications network.” J.A. 1042. Morgenstern’s 

Figure 6 and corresponding description teach a “recipient 

window . . . configured to receive an identity of a recipient 

user” in which the gift-giving user “enters a name of the 

recipient user” and the system “verifies the recipient user

. . . as a member of the social network environment.” 

J.A. 1045; J.A. 1030 (showing a recipient window 610). The 

system includes a “gift display window” from which the 

user can choose a gift to deliver to the selected recipient. 

J.A. 1045–46; J.A. 1030 (showing “an assortment of gifts 

640” in display window 620). 

There is likewise substantial-evidence support for the 

Board’s findings that the prior art discloses what Nomula 

identifies as the second and third elements. The second 

element is the collection and aggregation of information 

about the recipient’s social networking or ecommerce activity to use for recommending a gift for the recipient.6 See 

platform,” “listing the second user as a selectable recipient,” and “receiving . . . selection information from the user 

terminal, the selection information indicating that the second user is selected by the first user as a recipient to receive one or more gifts from the first user.” Appellant’s Br. 

9–10. Nomula makes no distinctions among these limitations in his argument about what he treats as the first element.

6 Nomula again identifies several claim limitations 

implicating this second element: “receiving . . . social network information of the second user from the social networking platform,” “retrieving, when ecommerce activity 

information of the second user is determined to be present 

in the database, ecommerce activity information of the second user,” and “sending . . . a third set of instructions to the 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 9 Filed: 05/12/2020
10 IN RE: NOMULA

’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at *9–10; J.A. 18–20. The 

third is determining whether the gift recipient’s social networking or ecommerce activity information exists in a database along with other users’ information. The evidence 

for these elements is usefully discussed together.

The prior art teaches collecting and aggregating the recipient’s social networking or ecommerce activity information. Morgenstern discloses that users of social 

networking platforms “provid[e] information about the 

user to a social network website for access by the other users.” J.A. 1041. This information includes “current job position, hobbies,” and “information about gifts received, gifts 

given, purchases made, etc.” Id. Kanigsberg similarly discloses collecting and analyzing a user’s interests, including 

“movies, music[,] books,” and “[r]atings for products.” J.A. 

1096.

The prior art likewise discloses using the recipient’s aggregated social networking or ecommerce activity information to recommend gifts. Morgenstern discloses 

recommending gifts based on the “affinity of the recipient.” 

J.A. 1044. Morgenstern also teaches the use of a “gift box” 

that displays “digital assets received as gifts by a recipient.” J.A. 1041, 1044; see J.A. 1025–26, 1030–31. This information is social networking or ecommerce activity 

information7 that indicates which assets the recipient 

user terminal for the user terminal to display a third [user 

interface]” in order to recommend gifts for purchase. Appellant’s Br. 13. Nomula makes no distinctions among 

these limitations in his argument about what he treats as 

the second element.

7 Nomula does not challenge the Board’s determination that “ecommerce activity information” is “information 

indicative of [a] user’s ecommerce activities on an ecommerce website.” See ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at 

*9; J.A. 19 (emphasis removed). 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 10 Filed: 05/12/2020
IN RE: NOMULA 11

already has and suggests limitations on the choice of gifts. 

See J.A. 1041 (when a recipient has an “IPOD” icon, “a second IPOD would probably not be an appropriate gift, while 

IPOD accessories and tunes might be appropriate gifts”), 

1044. There is substantial evidence for the Board to find

that the recipient’s aggregated information is used in gift 

recommendations.

Kanigsberg more explicitly discloses making recommendations based on social networking and ecommerce activity information. It discloses making advertising 

recommendations “based on some information about the 

user’s profile” and the user’s “past behavior in conjunction 

with other users of the system,” including all users’ 

“[r]atings for products.” J.A. 1096. As the Board found, 

Kanigsberg’s analysis of a user’s behavior and the behavior 

of other users—including product ratings—discloses using

social networking and ecommerce activity information to

make recommendations. ’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, 

at *10; J.A. 20 (citing J.A. 1096). 

Further, in Kanigsberg, “user data [is] stored in [a] database” that is accessed to generate advertising recommendations for a user based on the stored data. J.A. 1099; see 

J.A. 1054 (showing “Data repository 315”), 1096, 1101 (describing “Database Construction and Population”). As the 

Board found, “Kanigsberg explicitly discloses statistically 

comparing a user’s personal ratings to the collaborative set 

of ratings [from other users] to form recommendations.” 

’992 Decision, 2019 WL 1255499, at *10; J.A. 20. The 

Kanigsberg system, therefore, determines whether the 

user’s data is stored in a database so that the data can be 

compared to other users’ information in order to make recommendations. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

conclusion that Kanigsberg, in combination with 

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 11 Filed: 05/12/2020
12 IN RE: NOMULA

Morgenstern’s gift-giving platform, discloses the second 

and third elements.8

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED 

8 The Director argues that Nomula failed to preserve, before the Board, several of the arguments presented 

in Nomula’s opening brief. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we do not address these waiver arguments.

Case: 19-1833 Document: 10 Page: 12 Filed: 05/12/2020