Ex Parte Aw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2017

13000260 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 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.
13/000,260 04/28/2011 Ai Ti Aw 5066-P05181US00/CAB 1652
110 7590 01/18/2017
DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN
1601 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2400
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2307
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AI TI AW, MIN ZHANG, LIAN HAU LEE, THUY VU, and
FON LIN LAI
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,2601
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, and 12—23, which constitute all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Agency for Science, Technology
and Research (A *STAR), a Singapore statutory board. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to aligning content and indexing
multilingual documents using pivot language. Abstract. Claims 1 and 18
are exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1. A method for aligning content and indexing documents
in a plurality of languages, the method comprising the steps of:
generating multiple bilingual terminology databases,
wherein each bilingual terminology database associates
respective terms in a pivot language with one or more terms in
another language; and
combining the multiple bilingual terminology databases
to form a multilingual terminology database, wherein the
multilingual terminology database associates terms in different
languages via the pivot language terms,
wherein generating the multiple bilingual terminology
databases comprises linking, for respective bilingual pairs of
the pivot language and another one of the plurality of
languages, content of the documents associated with each
bilingual pair based on the content similarity or relevance to
each other.
Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
18. A system for presenting multilingual content for
searching, the system comprising:
a display;
a database of indexed documents in a plurality of
languages, wherein each document is indexed to one or more
terms in a pivot language and such that terms in different
languages are associated via the pivot language terms;
wherein the display is divided into different sections,
each section representing a plurality of clusters of the indexed
documents in one language;
wherein respective clusters in each section are linked to
one or more clusters in another section via one or more of the
pivot language terms; and
2
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
visual markers for visually identifying the linked clusters
in the different sections.
Br. 26—27 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Kaplan et al. (US 5,787,386, iss. July 28,
1998) (“Kaplan”) in view of Brown et al. (US 7,260,570, iss. August 21,
2007) (“Brown”). Non Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 5—8 and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kaplan, Brown, and Liddy et al. (US 6,006,221, iss.
December 21, 1999) (“Liddy”). Non Final Act. 7—9.
Claims 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kostorizos et al. (US 2008/0263022 Al. Pub. October 23,
2008) (“Kostorizos”) in view of Brown. Non Final Act. 9—11.
ANALYSIS
The § 103(a) Rejection over Kaplan and Brown
Appellants argue Kaplan and Brown do not teach the claim 1
limitations of:
generating multiple bilingual terminology databases, wherein .
. . (also referred to as 1A);
combining the multiple bilingual terminology databases to form
. . . (also referred to as IB); [and]
wherein generating the multiple bilingual terminology
databases comprises linking, for. . . (also referred to as 1C).
3
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
Br. 9-14.
Regarding limitation 1A, Appellants argue Kaplan discloses a
database 19 which may have multiple translator files 20 with one translator
file 20 for each language and therefore each translator file 19 is not a
bilingual terminology database. Br. 9 (citing Kaplan 5:8—15). Appellants
further argue Kaplan does not disclose multiple databases of such bilingual
terminology databases because the database would include separate
translator files. According to Appellants, the Examiner does not consider
Kaplan as a whole as portions of Kaplan would lead away from the claimed
invention. Id. at 9—10.
Regarding limitation IB, Appellants present arguments asserted for
limitation 1A and argue, because Kaplan fails to disclose generating multiple
databases of the bilingual terminology databases, therefore, Kaplan fails to
disclose combining the multiple bilingual terminology databases. Br. 10—11.
Appellants further argue Kaplan does not teach combining multilingual
terminology database associates terms in different languages via pivot
language terms because Kaplan uses a translation vector. Id. at 10 (citing
Kaplan 5:25-30 (Table); 6:11-28).
Regarding limitation 1C, Appellants argue there is no basis for
modifying Kaplan with the teaching of Brown to include linking the content
of documents for each bilingual pair based on the content similarity or
relevance to each other. Id. at 11—12 (citing Brown 3:51—67; 4:1—9).
According to Appellants, Kaplan discloses a multilingual translation
dictionary for translating one language into another language and does not
involve any processing of documents in different languages. Id. at 12. In
particular, “there is clearly no basis for modifying Kaplan such that the
4
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
content of the documents (which do not exist in Kaplan) for each bilingual
pair are linked based on the content similarly or relevance to each other,
since Kaplan does not disclose processing of documents.” Id. Appellants
further argue impermissible hindsight and the proposed modification would
change Kaplan's principle of operation and intended purpose of being a
multi-lingual translation dictionary. Id.
Appellants additionally argue Brown does not teach linking the
content of documents because Brown’s ranking of documents does not
constitute linking content of the documents based on the content similarity
or relevance to each other. Id. at 13 (citing 3:51—67; 4:1—9). According to
Appellants, the Examiner has gone beyond the disclosure of Brown. Id.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 1 and
limitations 1A, IB, and 1C.
Regarding Kaplan and limitations 1A and IB, the Examiner finds the
translator files are comprised of tables and concept groups and are used for
translating terms between different languages. Ans. 4 (citing Fig. 2; 5:3—6,
13—[16]2). Concept groups are created by first defining a pivot language and
the concept groups are created with respect to the defined pivot language to
associate respective terms in the pivot language with one or more terms in
another language. Id. (2:22—26, 5:3—6, 20-37).
In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
2The Answer states lines 13—5, however, based on the context, it appears
lines 13—16 are intended. Ans. 4.
5
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
The example concept group shown in column 5 of Kaplan
shows how respective terms in a pivot language are associated
with one or more terms in another language. The Examiner
interprets each translator file as a bilingual terminology
database because each translator file associates respective terms
in a pivot language with one or more terms in another language.
Thus, contrary [to] Appellant's allegation, while each translator
file is made for a language, the content of each translator file
(i.e., bilingual terminology database) contains concept groups
that associate terms in the pivot language (i.e., the language for
which the translator file is for) with one or more terms in
another language.
Id.
Regarding Kaplan and Brown and limitation 1C, the Examiner relies
on Kaplan’s translator files as bilingual terminology databases, supra. Ans.
5. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
Kaplan discloses each translator file is created with respect to a
defined pivot language and associating terms in the defined
pivot language with one or more terms in another language.
Kaplan at col. 2, lines 22-6; col. 5, lines 3-9. Kaplan discloses a
database that comprises the translator files. Kaplan at Fig. 1-19.
This database is interpreted as the multilingual terminology
database because it is made up of a plurality of translator files
(i.e., multiple bilingual terminology databases). The database
(i.e., multilingual terminology database) allows for translation
between two or more distinct languages. Kaplan at col. 5, lines
8-9. As discussed above in section A.I, each translator file
associates terms in a pivot language with one or more terms in
another language. It would follow that a database comprising
multiple translator files associates terms in different languages
via the pivot language terms.
Ans. 5—6.
6
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
Regarding whether Kaplan’s use of translation vectors does not teach
associates terms in different languages via the pivot language terms, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, the translation vector is part of the database
of translator files. Ans. 6 (citing Fig. 2).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Brown’s ranking does not
constitute linking as required by claim 1, the Examiner determines the
Specification does not limit the term linking and interprets linking to mean
creating an association or relation between content of documents. Ans. 8.
Brown teaches keyword translations and synonyms wherein the synonyms
are analyzed and ranked relative to other documents and the ranking
relationship is created based on document content relevance. Ans. 8—9
(citing Brown 3:21—50.51—67; 4:1—9).
Regarding Appellants’ hindsight contention, the Examiner finds, and
we agree:
Kaplan relates to multi-translating system for translating words
and phrases in one language into corresponding words or
phrases of one or more different languages. Kaplan at col. 1,
lines 8-11. Brown relates to searching for documents in one
language and identifying documents in different languages
based on the search. Brown at col. 1, lines 20-4. In other words,
Brown is also related to translating words and phrases in one
language into corresponding words or phrases of one or more
different languages in order to identify documents.
Accordingly, Kaplan and Brown are analogous because they are
both directed toward the same field of multi-lingual translation
of words and phrases. While Kaplan does not expressly disclose
processing documents, Kaplan does disclose translating (i.e.,
processing) words and phrases. Kaplan at col. 1, lines 8-11.
Since documents comprise words and phrases, it would follow
7
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
that Kaplan discloses processing the content of documents.
Thus, contrary to Appellant's allegation, modifying Kaplan with
Brown would not have changed Kaplan's principle of operation
and intended purpose of translating words and phrases.
Ans. 7.
We agree the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable, and
we note these findings have not been rebutted in a Reply Brief. Appellants
present no persuasive arguments that the Examiner’s findings and
interpretation of the term linking to include the teaching of Browns’ ranking
is unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent application are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner’s
combining of Kaplan and Brown is unreasonable. Mere lawyer’s arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience
is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required
to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); see also In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, absent persuasive rebuttal
evidence or technical reasoning to the contrary, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in combining Kaplan and Brown.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2,
4, 9, 10, 12, and 17 as these claims stand or fall with claim 1. Br. 13.
8
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
The § 103(a) Rejection over Kaplan, Brown, andLiddy
Appellants argue Liddy does not overcome the deficiency of Kaplan
and Brown regarding the limitations 1 A, IB, and 1C for claim 1 and,
therefore, the Examiner errs in the rejection of dependent claims 5—8 and
13—16. Br. 14—15. As discussed supra, there is no deficiency and, therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 5—8 and 13—16.
The § 103(a) Rejection over Kostorizos and Brown
Regarding claim 18, Appellants present arguments considered supra
regarding claim 1 and additionally argue: Kostorizos provides a general
search engine for locating relevant documents based on a user input query
such as the example shown in FIG. 10, but does not relate whatsoever to
documents of different language; Kostorizos fails to explicitly disclose
different sections, each section representing a plurality of clusters of the
indexed documents in one language; and neither Kostorizos nor Brown nor
the combination thereof teach, suggest, or disclose the linking of clusters
through pivot language terms. Br. 15—19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, particularly as set forth in
the Answer. Ans. 10—15. We note the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
are reasonable and are not rebutted in a Reply Brief.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 18, and claims
19—23 as these claims stand or fall with claim 18. Br. 20.
9
Appeal 2015-007142
Application 13/000,260
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—10, and
12-28.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10