11713444 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

Ex Parte Bratseth

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 3, 2015

11713444 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

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. 11/713,444 03/02/2007 Jon Bratseth 50269-0886 2050 73066 7590 02/10/2015 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! 1 Almaden Boulevard Floor 12 San Jose, CA 95113 EXAMINER TRAN, BAO G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2015 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 JON BRATSETH ____________ Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 15–18, and 20–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments Appellant actually raised. Arguments that Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to search queries. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method comprising: receiving a query directed to a default search engine index; applying a set of rules to the query directed to the default search engine index, wherein each rule of said set of rules specifies: one or more conditions, and an action for transforming a given query; wherein applying the set of rules generates a transformed query by: for each rule of said set of rules that is associated with one or more conditions that are satisfied by the query, performing a query transformation according to the respective action specified for said each rule; wherein performing a query transformation according to the respective action specified for at least one rule of said set of rules includes adding, based on a term identified in said query, an expression that identifies a vertical search engine index to search, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index, said vertical search engine index not being identified in the query before applying said set of rules; wherein said vertical search engine index is a different index than said default search engine index; said vertical search engine index indexing a different domain than indexed by said default search engine index; wherein the method is executed by one or more computing devices. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 15–18, and 20–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colby (US 2008/0114744 A1, May 15, 2008) and Ramer (US 2007/0060114 A1, Mar. 15, 2007). Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 3 ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding Colby and Ramer collectively teach a query transformation . . . includes adding, based on a term identified in said query, an expression that identifies a vertical search engine index to search, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 4–9; Reply Br. 2– 5), and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions on pages 7–9 and 21–22 of the Answer as our own.1 Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points for emphasis. Appellant asserts Ramer does not teach the disputed claim limitation because the cited Ramer passages do no teach query transformation based on a term identified in the query, and they do not teach an expression that identifies a vertical search engine index to search, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index. 1 Except for the sentence “[T]he term “vertical search engine index” is disclosed as . . . of the Specifications[]” on pages 7 and 22, which we will clarify below. Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 4 See App. Br. 4–9; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant contends the Examiner incorrectly interprets the claim. See App. Br. 6, 8; Reply Br. 2. We disagree. In light of the broad claim limitations, the Examiner reasonably interprets the limitations to encompass Ramer’s disclosures. The Examiner correctly finds Ramer teaches “performing a query transformation.” See Ans. 7, 21–22; Ramer ¶ 336 (“refine a search query”); Ramer ¶ 176 (discussing transforming a query). The Examiner finds Ramer teaches adding, based on the term “restaurant” identified in the query. See Ans. 22, Ramer ¶ 544. Further, the Examiner cites Ramer, which states, in part: The category may then be subject to further vertical searching, by reference to additional search categories. For example, a search performed for restaurants using a mobile communication facility 102 may yield a listing of restaurants that may then be further categorized according to ethnicity. Ramer ¶ 544 (emphasis added). Therefore, the recited claim limitation “an expression that identifies a vertical search engine index to search, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index,” is taught by or at least obvious in light of Ramer’s teachings. For example, based on the term “restaurant,” adding an expression that identifies a vertical search engine (such as an engine that uses indexes that index documents that are limited to (1) restaurant domains or the restaurant topic; or alternatively, (2) Chinese restaurant domains or the Chinese restaurant topic) index, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index (the expression follows a syntax configured for expressly identified an index that is associated with the vertical search engine described above). Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 5 And the Examiner’s mappings are consistent with the Specification. Appellant cites the Specification’s paragraph 23 for supporting the disputed claim limitation. See App. Br. 2–3. That paragraph broadly states: [0023] Rule generation for a particular rule base is readily demonstrated in the context of a database of songs FIG. 2. The database 200 contains the following fields: title, album, artist, description, review. There are 5 songs 201-205. All the fields are indexed to the same default index. The fields are also individually indexed by separate indexes (not shown). The default index is used for searches which do not specify a particular index. A particular index to use for a query may be, for example, specified within the query by using the syntax indexname:word. Spec. 5–6. Although the Specification does not define “a vertical search engine index,” it states “vertical search engines are engines that use indexes that index documents that are limited to a particular domain or particular topic.” Spec. [0008]. In interpreting “a vertical search engine index,” the Examiner correctly cites paragraph 8 of the Specification, which defines vertical search engines. See Ans. 22. Given the Examiner’s correct mappings discussed above, and the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 8 of the Specification, we understand the Examiner’s interpretation of “a vertical search engine index” to mean an index associated with a vertical search engine. In Ramer, a vertical search engine index indexes documents that are limited to (1) restaurant domains or the restaurant topic; or alternatively, (2) Chinese restaurant domains or the Chinese restaurant topic. As a result, the claim limitation “a query transformation . . . includes adding, based on a term identified in said query, an expression that identifies a vertical search engine index to search, said expression following a syntax configured for expressly identifying a specific search engine index” is taught Appeal 2012-009139 Application 11/713,444 6 by or at least obvious in light of Ramer’s teachings. Combining Ramer’s various teachings would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6, 7, 15–18, and 20–27, not separately argued (App. Br. 9–10) for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6, 7, 15–18, and 20–27 is 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 tc