Ex Parte Aggour et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2011

11552538 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAREEM SHERIF AGGOUR,
JOHN ALAN INTERRANTE, CHRISTINA ANN LACOMB, ABHA
MOITRA, and IBRAHIM GOKCEN
___________

Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kareem Sherif Aggour, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-15 and 29-42. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “a technique for automatically and intelligently
retrieving information.” Spec., para. [0001].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A multi-agent system for automatically
acquiring desired information from one or more
information sources, the system comprising;
an input device configured for inputting data
indicative of a desired information;
a processor communicably coupled to the input
device and configured to receive the input data;
the processor comprising:
a plurality of data provider filter agents
associated with the one or more information
sources and configured to search for the desired
information within the respective information

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Feb. 26, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 19,
2010).

Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

3
sources based on an assessment of the one or
more information sources; wherein the
assessment of the one or more information
sources comprises assessing at least one of a
potential value of the desired information, a
potential cost to acquire the desired information
from the one or more information sources, or a
combination thereof; …
a content extraction agent configured to acquire
a plurality of articles containing the desired
information from the one or more information
sources based on the search; [and]
an output device communicatively coupled to
the processor and configured for outputting the
plurality of articles containing the desired
information.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Parunak
Lawrence
US 2005/0154701 A1
US 2006/0004866 A1
Jul. 14, 2005
Jan. 5, 2006

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Parunak.
2. Claims 7 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parunak and Lawrence.

Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

4
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 are
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Parunak. Specifically, the issue is
whether Parunak describes the claimed plurality of data provider filter
agents which are configured to search based on an assessment of the one or
more information sources, wherein the assessment of the one or more
information sources comprises assessing a potential value of the desired
information. The rejection of claims 7 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parunak and Lawrence also turn on this issue.
The second issue is whether claim 4 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) by Parunak. Specifically, the issue is whether Parunak describes that
the assessment of the one or more information sources further comprises a
probability of the desired information to be contained in each of the one or
more information sources.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Parunak describes software “ants” which search for relevant
information in a paragraph matrix by matching text patterns
associated with a concept map. Parunak, para. [0243].
2. Parunak also describes that if an “ant” is successful in
finding a match within a paragraph, the attractiveness of the
Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

5
paragraph to other ants is increased. Parunak, paras. [0245]-
[0247].

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Parunak.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42
The Appellants argued claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 as a
group. Br. 11-15. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
group, and the remaining claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Appellants argue that Parunak does not describe a plurality of
data provider filter agents that is specifically configured as recited in claim
1. Br. 11-15. We find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Claim 1
requires that the plurality of data provider filter agents are is:
configured to search for the desired information
within the respective information sources based on
an assessment of the one or more information
sources; wherein the assessment of the one or more
information sources comprises assessing at least
one of a potential value of the desired information,
a potential cost to acquire the desired information
from the one or more information sources, or a
combination thereof.
(Emphasis added).
Giving this limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification, we find that Parunak describes the claimed data provider
filter agents which are configured to search within the information sources
based on an assessment that comprises assessing a potential value of the
Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

6
desired information. Parunak describes software “ants” (i.e., filters) which
search for relevant information in a paragraph matrix (i.e., information
sources) by matching text patterns associated with a concept map. FF 1.
Parunak also describes that if an “ant” is successful in finding a match
within a paragraph, the attractiveness (i.e., potential value) of the paragraph
to other ants is increased. FF 2. The other ant’s search can be considered to
be based upon an assessment of the attractiveness of the paragraph.
Therefore, we find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
We note that independent claim 29 recites a similar limitation and that
the Appellants rely upon their same argument above, which we found
unpersuasive, to traverse the rejection of claim 29. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 29-33, and 35-42 is sustained.

Claim 4
The Appellants argue that Parunak does not describe that the
assessment of the one or more information sources further comprises a
probability of the desired information to be contained in each of the one or
more information sources as recited in claim 4. Br. 15-16.
We find this argument persuasive. In the rejection, the Examiner cites
the Abstract and paragraphs [0009], [0087], [0198], and [0266]-[0268] of
Parunak as describing this limitation. Ans. 5. However, we see nothing in
the Abstract, the cited paragraphs, or the remainder of Parunak that describes
the limitation at issue. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Parunak is reversed.

Appeal 2010-011584
Application 11/552,538

7
The rejection of claims 7 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parunak and Lawrence.
To traverse the rejection of claims 7 and 34, the Appellants rely upon
their arguments with respect to claims 1 and 29 above. See Br. 16. Because
we found the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive as to that rejection, we
find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claims 7 and
34. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Parunak and Lawrence is sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-15, and 29-42 is
affirmed and to reject claims 4 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

hh