Ex Parte Aggarwal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2009

10410846 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHARU C. AGGARWAL
____________________

Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,8461
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: November 30, 2009
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 24 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Application filed April 10, 2003. The real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corporation.
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

2
We affirm the rejections.

Appellant’s invention relates to an improved method for retrieving
documents, as from over the Internet, based on logged data of user retrievals.
In the words of Appellant:
The present invention realizes that, given the fact that there is a
large amount of information available on an information network,
such as the world wide web, which can be used for topical resource
discovery, the most effective crawls can be performed only when the
user interests are substantially taken into account. This is because the
final judgment on the quality of the crawl is made by the users
themselves. The user interests can significantly indicate the topical
areas which are in the scope of his understanding. The present
invention realizes that it is useful to harness this user information into
the data mining process in order to find the documents, such as web
pages, which are of greatest interest to users.

Thus, the present invention provides techniques for effectively
taking user interests into account during the crawling process. Such
user-centered network search and crawling techniques find documents
on a particular topic by crawling in a carefully selective way, in which
those documents which are preferred by particular users are selected
out. It is to be understood that the term "document" is intended to
generally refer to any data resource on the information network that
may be accessed. In the context of the world wide web, a document
may be a web page. However, the invention is not intended to be so
limited.

Accordingly, in one aspect of the invention, a computer-based,
user-centered technique for performing document retrieval in
accordance with an information network comprises the following
steps. First, a query comprising at least a user-defined predicate is
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

3
obtained. Next, a group of one or more users is determined for a set of
one or more documents that satisfy the predicate. The user group
comprises one or more users who have previously accessed at least
one of the one or more documents in the set. The determination of
whether a user has previously accessed a document is obtained from a
log that maintains data representing user document access behavior.
Next, a topical inclination value is determined for each user in the
user group. The topical inclination value for each user is indicative of
a level of interest the user has in the one or more documents in the set.
A topical affinity value is then determined for each document
accessed by the user group based on the topical inclination value
determined for each user. The topical affinity value for each document
is indicative of the likelihood that each document satisfies the
predicate based on the access behavior associated with the one or
more users in the user group. Lastly, the one or more documents
ranked in accordance with their respective topical affinity values are
output as a response to the query.

(Spec. 3, l. 12 to spec. 4, l. 18.)

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-based method of performing document retrieval
in accordance with an information network, the method comprising
the steps of:

obtaining a query comprising at least a user-defined predicate;

determining a group of one or more users for a set of one or
more documents that satisfy the predicate, the user group comprising
one or more users who have previously accessed at least one of the
one or more documents in the set, wherein a determination of whether
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

4
a user has previously accessed a document is obtained from a log that
maintains data representing user document access behavior;

determining a topical inclination value for each user in the user
group, the topical inclination value for each user being indicative of a
level of interest the user has in the one or more documents in the set;

determining a topical affinity value for each document accessed
by the user group based on the topical inclination value determined
for each user, the topical affinity value for each document being
indicative of the likelihood that each document satisfies the predicate
based on the access
behavior associated with the one or more users in the user group; and

outputting the one or more documents ranked in accordance
with their respective topical affinity values.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fleming US 6,473,752 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
Kondo US 2003/0140148 A1 Jul. 24, 2003
(filed Dec. 5, 2001)

Habegger US 2003/0217008 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
(filed Feb. 20, 2003)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 13 to 18, and 21 to 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Kondo in view of Habegger.
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

5
R2: Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Kondo in view of Habegger and
further in view of Fleming.

Groups of Claims:
The claims will be discussed in the order of the rejections, with claim
1 representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(vii).
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Kondo and Habegger alone, or in combination with Fleming, for
failure of the references to teach claimed limitations. The Examiner
contends that each of the claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this opinion. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
Kondo and Habegger teach the claimed inclination value for each user, and
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

6
the topical inclination value. At issue also is the propriety of the
combination of these specific references.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant has invented an improved method of searching for relevant
documents from a large information network such as the Internet. (Spec.
3, l. 12). It starts with obtaining a query with a user defined predicate,
such as a keyword. (Spec. 4, l. 7). A set of users is found who have
successfully retrieved documents based on that predicate. (Id.). This
group is studied, based on logs of their previous searches, to develop a
topical inclination toward that document for each user. (Spec. 7, l. 21).
A sub-process is then generated to crawl a list of candidate pages with a
high topical relevance, or topical affinity. (Spec. 7, l. 25, Fig. 5). This
list is presented to the user. (Id.).
2. Kondo teaches a system for presenting information, such as web pages,
to users based on calculations of evaluation values from prior users. (¶
[0019]). The evaluation and search server starts with a keyword search
send from the user, and the reporting of a search result. (¶[0091],
¶[0125]). Evaluations are based on each user’s evaluation value assigned
to the web pages. This evaluation value is based on each user’s
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

7
preference for a certain web page, as expressed by a number of points. (¶
[0175]-¶[0177]). The individual evaluation values from each user are
mathematically combined to determine a overall evaluation value of the
web page. (¶[0181]). This is presented to the user. (¶[0125]).
3. Habegger teaches a system and method for presenting electronic
documents to users and tracking their use. (¶[0002] and ¶[0004]). A
plurality of users of the documents can be tracked and recorded. (¶
[0026]).
4. Fleming teaches a system and method for locating computer documents
presented to users and groups of users. (Fig. 10; col. 3, l. 1 – 3). The
system logs data as recorded usage information for analysis by topic.
(Col. 4, ll. 12-29).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

8
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 417.
References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103 qualify as
prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the
claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two
separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and,
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir.
1986); see also In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) and In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore,
‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . .
[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

9
ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has presented a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prima facie case is presented on pages 3
to 8 of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellant presents a number
of arguments.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 13 to 18, and 21 to 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R1]
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 13 to 18, and 21 to 24
for being obvious over Kondo in view of Habegger. Appellant first argues
that “the information processing apparatus of Kondo does not determine a
topical inclination value for each user in the user group, such that the topical
inclination value for each user is indicative of a level of interest the user has
in one or more documents in the set.” (App. Br. 8, bottom).
The Examiner has supported her rejection with a finding that the cited
limitations are taught by Kondo in ¶¶[0175] to [0177]. (Answer 9). The
referenced section of Kondo states, “[Fig. 14] indicates an example
evaluation value of each user for the ‘web page A’ serving as a web page
included in the search result sent from the search section 92.” (Id.). The
Appellant’s argument concerning the contents of ¶[0125] has been
considered, but does not negate the effectiveness of the Examiner’s citation
in support of the rejection.
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

10
In view of our support of the Examiner’s conclusion, that Kondo
teaches gathering the evaluation value of each user, Appellant’s arguments
concerning the deficiency of the Habegger reference are not convincing.
(App. Br. 8, bottom).
Appellant further argues that the motivation for combining the Kondo
and Habegger references is insufficient. (App. Br. 9, middle). We disagree.
Both references are from arts analogous to the Appellant’s invention, namely
the selection of relevant documents from among a large body of documents.
See In re Clay (cited above). The required articulated reasoning for
combining teachings from the aforementioned references has been provided
by the Examiner; see for example, Answer, page 11.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R2]
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 for being
obvious over Kondo in view of Habegger and Fleming. Appellant argues
that the Fleming reference does not teach the predicate satisfaction
percentage of the retrieved documents. (App. Br. 11, bottom). The
Examiner points to Kondo, ¶[0167], wherein a 100 point scale is used to
indicate the individual users’ evaluation values of the subject web pages.
(Answer 12, bottom). We agree with the Examiner’s rejection, that it would
be obvious over these enumerated scaled expressions of the user’s
evaluation points to use a percentage value to present the predicate
Appeal 2009-005069
Application 10/410,846

11
satisfaction. The Fleming reference was used to teach determining a level of
user interest, as expressed by the Examiner in the Answer, page 8, bottom
and thus is not relevant to the argument of the Appellant. (App. Br. 11).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 to 24 as expressed in
rejections R1 and R2.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1 to 24 are Affirmed.

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

AFFIRMED
rwk

Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley NY 11560