Ex Parte Brin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201310629479 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/629,479 07/28/2003 Sergey Brin 0026-0149 7460 44989 7590 09/27/2013 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP 11350 Random Hills Road SUITE 600 FAIRFAX, VA 22030 EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 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 SERGEY BRIN, BENEDICT GOMES, and SIMON TONG ____________________ Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DAVID M. KOHUT, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 37-45, 49, 51-57, 63-74, and 77-89. 2 Claims 1-36, 46-48, 50, 58-62, 75 and 76 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Introduction The claims are directed to a system and method for providing a user interface with search query broadening during query processing. Spec. 1:8- 10. Claim 37, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 37. A method performed by a computer system, the method comprising: receiving, using a network interface associated with the computer system, a search query comprising a plurality of search terms from a user, where the search query further includes a plurality of user-selected operators associated with one of the search terms of the search query and where the plurality of operators comprise a same operator repeated multiple times; broadening, using one or more processors associated with the computer system, the one of the search terms based on the plurality of user-selected operators to produce a broadened search query, where broadening the one of the search terms comprises: broadening the one of the search terms to an extent determined by a number of times the same operator is repeated; and 1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 12, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jul. 14, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 14, 2010). 2 The Real Party in Interest is Google, Inc. Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 3 executing, using one or more processors associated with the computer system, a search using the broadened search query. Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 37-45, 49, 51-57, 63-74 and 77-89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Basu (U.S. 2003/0212666 A1, Nov. 13, 2003) and Nelson (U.S. 6,243,713 B1, Jun. 5, 2001). Ans. 4-14. ANALYSIS We recognize that Appellants raise numerous issues with respect to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 37-45, 49, 51-57, 63-74 and 77-89. App. Br. 9-60. We are persuaded of error, however, by the issues identified below that apply to independent claims 37, 39, 49, 65, 80 and 85, all of the appealed independent claims. Thus, we do not reach the additional issues and only address the issues related to claims 37, 39, 49, 65, 80 and 85. Independent Claim 37 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Nelson teaches or suggests “broadening the one of the search terms comprises: broadening the one of the search terms to an extent determined by a number of times the same operator is repeated” as recited in claim 37? Appellants contend that Basu and Nelson do not teach or suggest broadening, using one or more processors associated with a computer system, one of the search terms based on a plurality of user-selected operators to produce a broadened search query, where broadening the one of the search terms comprises broadening the one of the search terms to an extent determined Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 4 by a number of times a same operator is repeated, as recited in claim 37. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that the type-specific query tokens used to expand queries in Nelson is “done by default or at the discretion of the user.” App. Br. 10 (citing Nelson, col. 7, ll. 15-25). The Nelson reference does not teach, Appellants argue, “broadening the one of the search terms to an extent determined by a number of times the same operator is repeated” as claimed. Id. The Examiner finds that Nelson teaches that “additional tokens may be used to represent other words similarly spelled to query keywords, or that have similar meanings, or other images of similar shape, color, or texture. This query expansion can be done by default or at the discretion of the user via query operators.” Ans. 16. The Examiner finds that “the numbers of terms added to the query depends on the number of tokens present in the expansion” such that “if a user presents a query with the term sunset the query will be expanded depending on the number of tokens to added colors, luminance, and phonemes thus increasing the likelihood that the user will get information they want.” Ans. 17. Appellants respond that the tokens taught in Nelson do not correspond to the plurality of user selected operators recited in claim 37. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that Nelson does not teach user-selected operators as recited in claim 37. Assuming that tokens correspond to the operators of claim 37, the Examiner has not shown that tokens in Nelson are broadened based on the number of times a token is repeated. See App. Br. 11. We do agree with the Examiner that Nelson teaches that “expansion can either be done by default, or at the discretion of the user via query operators” Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 5 and that such a “[q]uery expansion selects ‘alternate’ tokens to add to the query based on the original query tokens.” Nelson col. 7, ll. 14-23. The Examiner, however, has not shown that either the number of times a token is repeated or the number of times a query operator is repeated is used to broaden the search terms as recited in claim 37. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Nelson teaches or suggests “broadening the one of the search terms comprises: broadening the one of the search terms to an extent determined by a number of times the same operator is repeated” as recited in claim 37. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 37. As claims 38 and 40-45 depend from claim 37 we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37, 38, and 40-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claim 39 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest “excluding . . . the broadened one of the plurality of search terms from the search query,” “executing . . . a search based on the search query, after excluding the broadened one of the plurality of search terms, to provide search results” and “evaluating . . . the search results relative to the excluded search term using categorical or clustered distinctions” as recited in claim 39? Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 23-24. Appellants contend that Basu and Nelson fail to teach or suggest the “excluding,” “executing” and “evaluating” limitations of claim 39. App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 9. Appellants assert that Basu does not disclose excluding a broadened search term from a query or evaluating the search results relative Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 6 to the excluded search term and that the Examiner failed to address this limitation. Reply Br. 9. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to address the “evaluating” and “executing” limitations of claim 39. See Ans. 5-6, 29. The Examiner states that the claim limitations of 39 simply state that the broadening that would normally take place, should not take place after the exclusion. Ans. 29. We disagree. We find that the Examiner has failed to show that Basu ¶¶ [0043] and [0004] (Ans. 5-6) supports the claimed “evaluating . . . the search results relative to the excluded search term using categorical or clustered distinctions.” The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence that the query expansion operation in Basu, ¶¶ [0038] and [0043], teaches the “evaluating” and “executing” limitations of claim 39. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest “excluding . . . the broadened one of the plurality of search terms from the search query,” “executing . . . a search based on the search query, after excluding the broadened one of the plurality of search terms, to provide search results” and “evaluating . . . the search results relative to the excluded search term using categorical or clustered distinctions” as recited in claim 39. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 39. As claims 77-79 depend from claim 39 we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 39 and 77-79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 7 Independent Claim 49 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest: One or more instructions to broaden the one of the search terms [of a search query] to an extent determined by the user-assigned strength to produce a broadened search query, where a number of the multiple symbols [in the search query] determines the extent to which the one of the search terms is broadened, as recited in claim 49? Reply Br. 10-11; App. Br. 30-34. Appellants contend that Basu and Nelson fail to teach or suggest that a number of multiple symbols in a search query determine the extent to which the search query is broadened. App. Br. 31. Appellants argue that Basu, which allows a user to indicate that a sub-query term is not relevant to future searches, fails to disclose the required multiple symbols that define a user- assigned strength of broadening association with one of the search terms of the query. Reply Br. 10-11. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Basu, ¶ [0038], teaches that “query expansion that is adaptive and can be modified by user interactions and queries” and uses a “‘probability of relevance’ that is adjusted based on whether or not the term should be used” as the “user- assigned strength. Ans. 32. We find that Basu teaches that sub-query terms are given less importance for future searches if so indicated by a user. Basu, ¶ [0038]. Claim 49 requires that the user-assigned strength is applied to one of the search terms of the search query, not a sub query term. Furthermore, the Examiner has failed to show that “a number of multiple symbols in the search query determines the extent to which the one of the search terms is broadened.” App. Br. 31-32. The Examiner’s rejection fails to describe Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 8 how Nelson applies to the broadening of a search query based on the number of multiple symbols in the query. App. Br. 32; Ans. 7-8. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest “one or more instructions to broaden one of the search terms of a search query to an extent determined by the user-assigned strength to produce a broadened search query, where a number of the multiple symbols determines, the extent to which the one of the search terms is broadened” as recited in claim 49. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 49. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 49 and claims 51- 57 and 64 that depend from claim 49. Independent Claim 65 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest the “means for broadening” using “multiple user-selected operators” as recited in claim 65? App. Br. 40-44. Claim 65 presents a system claim corresponding to the method of claim 37. See App. Br. 41. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred with respect to claim 65 for the similar reasons presented with respect to claim 37. App. Br. 40-44. Appellants specifically contend that neither Basu or Nelson teach or suggest the means for broadening including “the multiple user-selected operators comprise multiple symbols that represent search term broadening” as recited in claim 65. App. Br. 41. The Examiner’s Answer relies on the same arguments presented for claim 37 for the rejection of claim 65. See Ans. 12, 14-17. As discussed above with respect to claim 37, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence that Basu or Nelson teach Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 9 or suggest the “means for broadening” using “multiple user-selected operators” as recited in claim 65. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 65 or its dependent claims 66-74. Independent Claims 80 and 85 Issues: Did the Examiner err in finding that Basu and Nelson teach or suggest: (1) “presenting . . . the set of broadened search terms as a set of corresponding hyperlinks in a user interface” and “ receiving . . . selection of a subset of hyperlinks of the set of hyperlinks to select a subset of the broadened search terms” as recited in claim 80, and; (2) “presenting . . . a set of checkboxes in conjunction with the set of broadened search terms, where each checkbox of the set of checkboxes corresponds to one broadened search term of the set of broadened search terms;” and “receiving . . . a selection of a subset of the set of checkboxes to select a subset of the broadened search terms” as recited in claim 85? App. Br. 52-56; 57-60. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Basu ¶¶ [0033] and [0038] teach or suggest presenting a set of broadened search terms to a user using either hyperlinks (claim 80) or checkboxes (claim 85). App. Br. 52-56; 57-60. Appellants contend that Basu ¶ [0033] only teaches or suggests “learning a user’s preferences through user feedback and adapting search results to the user’s definition.” App. Br. 53. Similarly, Basu, ¶ [0038] only teaches an adaptation module that learns for future Appeal 2011-000564 Application 10/629,479 10 searches based on a user’s indication that a sub-query term is not relevant to a particular search that has already been conducted. App. Br. 54, 58. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 23-24, 25-26). The Examiner has not explained how the cited references to Basu teach or suggest the features of claims 80 or 85. See Ans. 13-14 (discussing rejections for claims 80 and 85). The Examiner failed to address Appellants’ arguments for claims 80-84 (Ans. 25) or claims 85-89 (23-24). With respect to claims 81-89, the Examiner appears to rely on the rejections of claims 77- 79 and claim 39 from which they depend. See Ans. 12, 14. Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings that Basu or Nelson teach or suggest presenting to user a hyperlinked or check-boxed selection of broadened search terms as recited in claims 80 and 85. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Basu and Nelson teach the “presenting” and “receiving” limitations of claims 80 and 85. Based on the foregoing, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 80 and 85 and their respective dependent claims 81- 84 and 86-89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37-45, 49, 51-57, 63-74, and 77-89 is REVERSED. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation