Ex Parte Annau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13873393 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
13/873,393 04/30/2013 Thomas M. ANNAU AUS1P013C/AUS920155002US4 5687
126909 7590 06/14/2017
Zilka-Kotab, PC - Austin
1155 N ISt. Street, Suite 105
San Jose, CA 95172
EXAMINER
LIN, ALLEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. ANNAU, GREGORY B. LINDAHL,
SAMUEL MAKONNEN, MICHAEL MARKSON, KEITH PETERS,
ROBERT MICHAEL SALIBA, AL SARY, RICH SKRENTA,
DAN SWARTZ, ROBERT N. TRUEL, and TIMOTHY WALTERS
Appeal 2016-007107
Application 13/873,393
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants2 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed July 11, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 30,
2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 10, 2016) and the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 27, 2015).
2 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is International
Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007107
Application 13/873,393
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to generating an alternative search
query including a search operator associated with at least one keyword
detected from a user’s search query. Spec. 131; Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1.
1. A search engine system, comprising:
a slashtag server in communication with a network and a
web server, the slashtag server configured to,
receive a search query from a user via the network;
detect at least a search operator filter in the search
query, the search operator filter being associated with
a category of content from a social network site;
based on an internet search using the category of
content, generate an alternate search query;
analyze search results and edit the alternate search
query based on the analysis;
send the web server the edited alternate search query;
and
the web server configured to,
in response to receiving the edited alternate search
query, search the network and generate a first search
result; and
cause display of the first search result in a web
browser.
2
Appeal 2016-007107
Application 13/873,393
REFERENCES
Bailey et al.
Lunt et al.
Elvekrog et al.
US 2006/0230005 Al Oct. 12, 2006
US 7,788,260 B2 Aug. 31, 2010
US 2011/0153414 Al June 23, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 and 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bailey and Lunt. Final Act. 3—8.
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bailey, Lunt, and Elvekrog. Final Act. 8—10.
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bailey and Lunt
teaches or suggests
a slashtag server in communication with a network and a
web server, the slashtag server configured to, receive a search
query from a user via the network; detect at least a search
operator filter in the search query, the search operator filter
being associated with a category of content from a social
network site
as recited in claim 1, and similarly required by claim 6?
The issue presented with respect to claim 1 is dispositive. Separate
patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2—10. See App. Br. 6—12;
see also Reply Br. 2—10. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are
not discussed further herein.
Claim 1 recites “the slashtag server configured to, receive a search
query from a user via the network; detect at least a search operator filter in
the search query, the search operator filter being associated with a category
of content from a social network site. . ..” App. Br. 14. Appellants argue
ISSUE
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-007107
Application 13/873,393
that the combination of Bailey and Lunt fails to teach detecting a search
operator filter in the search query. App. Br. 8, 11—12. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Bailey’s revision server receives and modifies queries,
but does not detect a search operator filter in a query. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds Bailey discloses a system that receives a search
query and provides the query to a revision server for revision, where the
revised query is used for the search. Ans. 3; Bailey 29, 30. Further, the
Examiner finds that in order to revise a query, Bailey’s system must detect
the content of the query. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner.
Accordingly, because a search operator filter is content within a query
to specify a category of content for revising and executing search of the
query, we agree with the Examiner (id.) that executing a search of the query
includes detecting the search operator filter in the query. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey and Lunt.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey, Lunt, and Elvekrog.
4
Appeal 2016-007107
Application 13/873,393
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—10.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5