Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019003483 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
14/189,621 02/25/2014 Naveen Prakash Goel 3910US01 5545
108982 7590 12/31/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
PHAM, THIERRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAVEEN PRAKASH GOEL, WALTER W. CHANG,
EMRE DEMIRALP, SACHIN SONI, and REKHA AGARWAL
Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JASON J.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, 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, 3–9, and 11–22. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Systems, Inc.,
the assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the subject Application.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a contextualization and enhancement of
textual content. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, at a computing device, an intended context
of textual content based on demographic information of an
intended recipient of the textual content, the intended context
including an intended mood, intended emotion, intended tone, or
intended sentiment of the textual content;
determining, at the computing device, that the textual
content is not appropriate for the intended context by identifying
a word or a phrase in the textual content that is not appropriate
for the intended context;
responsive to determining that the textual content is not
appropriate for the intended context, generating, at the
computing device, at least one suggestion for modifying the
textual content to conform to the intended context; and
generating, at the computing device, modified textual
content that conforms to the intended context using the at least
one suggestion.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kunz US 2010/0082750 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Bhatt US 2013/0346067 A1 Dec. 26, 2013

Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3–9, 11–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhatt (US 20130346067 Al) in view of Kunz et al (US
20100082750). Final Act. 4.
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–9, 11–22 103 Bhatt, Kunz

OPINION
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that the combination of Bhatt and Kunz fails to teach
or suggest the limitation of “determining, at a computing device, an intended
context of textual content based on demographic information of an intended
recipient of the textual content, the intended context including an intended
mood, intended emotion, intended tone, or intended sentiment of the textual
content,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16.
In particular, Appellant argues that Kunz describes a “transformation
engine,” which merely transforms message data from a message sender’s
context to a message recipient's context, such as by transforming driving
directions from the perspective of the sender to the perspective of the
recipient. Id. at 19. Appellant asserts that in contrast to the subject matter
recited in claim 1, there is no aspect of Kunz that is analogous to Bhatt's
prediction dictionaries. Id. As such, there is no aspect of Kunz that is
useable by Bhatt to determine an intended context of textual content based

2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and thus, it is not
before us for review. See Ans. 6.
Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
4
on demographic information of an intended recipient of the textual content.
Id.
Appellant argues that Bhatt’s sentiment analysis engine relies on
sentiment dictionaries that correlate message sub-constructs with sentiment
scores. Id. at 21. Appellant argues that in contrast to Bhatt’s sentiment
dictionaries, there is no aspect of Kunz’s “context of the message recipient”
that is analogous to a sentiment score. Id. Appellant argues that there is no
aspect of Kunz’s “context of the message recipient” that is useable to
ascertain whether a frequently used word or phrase is more or less polite
than another frequently used word or phrase, much less a sentiment indicator
to indicate a type of sentiment for the frequently used words or phrases. Id.
Appellant further argues that the teachings of Bhatt “are devoid of any
description of a user generating the electronic message. Rather, Bhatt only
describes functionality that occurs after ‘a sender has prepared an electronic
message.’” Id. at 23 (footnote omitted). Appellant concludes that the
alleged motivation to combine Bhatt and Kunz lacks rational underpinnings
because the alleged benefits of Kunz, (i.e., transforming message data from a
context of a message sender to a context of a message recipient) is not
needed by Bhatt. Id. Further, according to Appellant, because Bhatt
determines a sentiment of a composed text, without requiring transforming
the composed text to a context of a recipient, there exists no reasonable
motivation to combine Bhatt and Kunz. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds and we agree
that Bhatt teaches methods/steps of identifying sentiment of the electronic
message (textual context, Fig. 6A). Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Figure
6B notifies the users/operators of the sentiment of the message and to
provide suggestions of alternate language using one or more suggestion
Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
5
thesauri. Id. The Examiner relies on Kunz for teaching methods/steps of
determining known demographic information of an intended recipient. Id. at
9.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
the known techniques as taught by Bhatt with Kunz to yield predictable
results (i.e., replacing in-appropriate intended contexts with appropriate
intended contexts based upon determined/known demographic information
of the intended recipient). Id. at 11. The Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim language terms of “an intended context of textual content based on
demographic information” is consistent with Appellant’s Specification
paragraph 48 wherein the term “guys” is corrected for the term “ladies”
based on the identified demographics of the intended audience being
women. See Spec. para. 48. Similarly, Kunz teaches transformation of the
sender message based on different recipient demographic information
including gender. See Kunz para. 7.
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason with a rational underpinning to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Not only are Appellant’s contentions unsubstantiated by any
persuasive evidence on this record, it is well settled that “a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness
whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
Appeal 2019-003483
Application 14/189,621
6
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. And here,
the Examiner’s proposed combination (of Bhatt’s teaching of identifying
sentiment of the electronic message and Kunz’s teaching of determining
known demographic information of an intended recipient) uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a
predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, the Examiner’s
proposed combination of the cited references is supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the
same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–9 and 11–22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, and 11–22 is
AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–
22
103 Bhatt, Kunz 1, 3–9, 11–
22

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–
22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED