Ex Parte Amitay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

11083204 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111083,204 03/17/2005
139443 7590 10/03/2016
IBM Israel IPLaw
Haifa University, Mount Carmel
Haifa, 39105
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Einat Amitay
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IL920050005US 1 7959
EXAMINER
PULLIAM, CHRISTY ANN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
hrl_ipdepartment@il.ibm.com
nickyl@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EINAT AMITAY, ADAM DARLOW, and URI WEISS
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083 ,204
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 36-55, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 1-35 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to assessing the quality of Internet
search engines by using information extracted from users' search query logs.
Spec. i-f 1. Claims 36, 44, and 52 are independent. Claim 36 is illustrative of
the invention and reads as follows:
36. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying multiple reformulation sessions in a log of queries
submitted to a search engine by human users, wherein each identified
reformulation session contains a respective group of the queries
submitted by a single, respective user within a predefined time
threshold such that successive queries in the respective group are
within a predefined similarity threshold;
counting respective numbers of the queries in the reformulation
sessions; and
assessing a quality of the search engine using the numbers.
App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 36-42, 44--50, and 52-55 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lau et al., Patterns of Search:
Analyzing and Modeling Web Query Refinement, Courses and Lectures-
International Centre For Mechanical Sciences, 1999, ISSUE 407, pages
119-128 ("Lau"), Wen at al., Query Clustering Using User Logs, ACM
Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 2002, Pages
59-81 ("Wen"), and Hawking et al., Measuring Search Engine
Quality, Information Retrieval, 4, 33-59, 2001 ("Hawking"). Final Act. 2-
17.
2
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
Claims 43 and 51 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lau, Wen, Hawking, and Horvitz et al. (US 2005/0033711
Al; pub. Feb. 10, 2005) ("Horvitz"). Final Act. 17-19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 36, 44, and 52
Under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants argue independent claims 36, 44, and 52 as a group, with
claim 36 being representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in two respects. First, Appellants
argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests
"reformulation sessions," as recited in claim 36. App. Br. 4---6. Second,
Appellants argue that even if the prior art teaches reformulation sessions, the
Examiner erred in finding a teaching or suggestion of (in Appellants' words)
a "connection" between such reformulation sessions and search engine
quality, i.e., "assessing a quality of the search engine using the numbers" of
"the queries in the reformulation sessions," as recited in claim 36. App. Br.
6-7. We address each argument in tum.
Regarding "reformulation sessions," Appellants define the term as "a
series of at least two [Internet search] queries issued by a user in order to
3
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
satisfy a single information need." Spec. il I 3. We find, as did the
Examiner, that Lau teaches this element. Lau (at 1) teaches an Internet user
performing web-based searches on "search engines such as Excite,
Alta Vista, and Lycos," receiving the results of a search in the form of a
"list," and then requesting additional results "or refin[ing] and
resubmit[ing] a query." Ans. 3 (citing Lau 1) (emphasis added). Lau
further teaches the use of "time-stamped data" regarding a user's "query
refinement activity," and "min[ing]" that data to "provide information about
the refinements and goals associated with queries." Lau 1 (emphasis added).
And Lau further teaches "reformulation" as being a "query on the same
topic" that is a "reformulation of the prior query." Lau 3 (emphasis added);
Ans. 3. As the Examiner finds, Lau repeatedly describes the interpretation
of log data regarding query reformulation within particular timeframes.
Ans. 3 (citing Lau 1, 3, 4, 5, Fig. 3, Fig. 4). 2 Accordingly, Appellants do not
persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
"reformulation sessions."
Regarding the second disputed limitation, "assessing a quality of the
search engine using the numbers" of the "queries in the reformulation
sessions," the Examiner cites Lau and Wen as modified by Hawking. Final
Act. 5---6. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Lau and Wen lack
2 The Examiner also cites the combination of Lau with Wen as teaching
additional limitations relating to reformulation sessions, including a
"predetermined similarity threshold." Final Act. 4--5. To the extent
Appellants intended their argument to contest this finding, the argument
(App. Br. 5) is unpersuasive of error because it does not address the
combination of references relied upon by the Examiner. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
any teaching regarding search engine quality, and Hawking lacks any
teaching of query formulation (or reformulation sessions). App. Br. 6-7.
One cannot demonstrate non-obviousness, however, "by attacking references
individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see also In re
Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. Because the Examiner cites Hawking for its
teachings regarding search engine quality, Appellants' arguments that Lau
and Wen do not explicitly address search engine quality fail to substantively
address the Examiner's rejection. Final Act. 5-6. Appellants' arguments,
therefore, do not persuade us of error. 3
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 36, 44, and 52 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lau, Wen, and Hawking.
Rejection of Claims 37-43, 45-51, and 53-55
Under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue all of the dependent claims are patentable for the
same reasons as independent claims 36, 44, and 52. App. Br. 8-12. We are
not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above.
3 Similarly, Appellants' cursory statements that the Examiner has not
"evinced any sort of rationale" to combine the references (App. Br. 6, 8) do
not persuade us of error. The record includes the Examiner's explanations
of the rationale to combine, including that the references are in the "same
field of endeavor" and directed to the same problems, Final Act. 5---6, and
Appellants do not explain the alleged error in that finding. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv).
5
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
Additionally, Appellants argue many of the dependent claims are
patentable because the prior art fails to teach additional elements recited in
those respective dependent claims. We address each argument in tum.
Regarding dependent claims 37, 45, and 53, which Appellants argue
as a group, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches "wherein assessing the quality comprises calculating a rate of query
reformulation based on the numbers." App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner cites the
same combination of Lau, Wen, and Hawking for this limitation as for the
"assessing ... quality" limitation in claim 3 6, Final Act. 6-7, and
additionally finds Lau' s abstract teaches "temporal patterns" (i.e., rate) of
query reformulation. Final Act. 6-7. Appellants do not explain the error in
this finding. Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us of error regarding
the rejection of claims 37, 45, and 53.
Regarding dependent claims 38, 46, and 54, which Appellants argue
as a group, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches "wherein assessing the quality comprises calculating respective
durations of the reformulation sessions." App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner
cites the same combination of Lau, Wen, and Hawking for this limitation as
for the "assessing ... quality" limitation in claim 3 6, Final Act. 6-7, and
additionally finds Lau's section 5.1 teaches calculating duration between
query refinements (i.e., reformulation sessions), Final Act. 7 (citing Lau 5).
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner's finding and are
unpersuaded of error regarding the rejection of claims 38, 46, and 54.
Regarding dependent claims 39, 47, and 55, which Appellants argue
as a group, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches "wherein assessing the quality comprises computing a quality
6
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
parameter of the reformulation sessions, and monitoring changes in the
quality parameter over time." App. Br. 10. The Examiner cites the same
combination of Lau, Wen, and Hawking for this limitation as for the
"assessing ... quality" limitation in claim 3 6, Final Act. 6-7, and
additionally finds Lau's abstract teaches analyzing "quality parameters" over
time, i.e., temporal patterns of query refinement with key statistics, query
length, query frequency, and other information goals, Final Act. 7. On the
record before us, we agree with the Examiner's finding and are unpersuaded
of error regarding the rejection of claims 39, 47, and 55.
Regarding dependent claims 40 and 48, which Appellants argue as a
group, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
"wherein assessing the quality comprises analyzing content-related and
syntax reformulations made in the reformulation sessions." App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner cites the same combination of Lau, Wen, and Hawking for
this limitation as for the "assessing ... quality" limitation in claim 36, Final
Act. 6-7, and additionally finds Lau's abstract, section 3, and section 3.1
teach gathering and "analyzing" content-related "query reformulation or
refinement," Ans. 7. On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner's
finding and are unpersuaded of error regarding the rejection of claims 40 and
48.
Regarding dependent claims 43 and 51, which Appellants argue as a
group, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
"automatically suggesting a query refinement to a user based on the queries
that were submitted in the reformulation sessions." App. Br. 11-12. The
Examiner finds this limitation taught in Horvitz as combined with the
previously-cited combination of Lau, Wen, and Hawking. Final Act. 17-18.
7
Appeal2015-005312
Application 11/083,204
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Horvitz (at il 30) teaches a "dialog
component" of a search interface that "engage[ s] a user to request a
reformulated question or additional information" following the user's search
query. See also Final Act. 18. Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us
the Examiner erred in rejection claims 43 and 51.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 37--40, 45--48, and 53-55 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lau, Wen, and Hawking, and we sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 43 and 51 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lau, Wen, Hawking, and Horvitz.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 36-55.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8