Ex Parte Bunescu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2014

11427678 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAZVAN CONSTANTIN BUNESCU and
ALEXANDRU MARIUS PASCA

___________

Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1–7, 12–16, 22, and 23. Claims 8–11 and 17–21 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a disambiguation scoring model in
which named entities are disambiguated in search queries and other contexts.
The scoring model is developed using a knowledge base of articles,
including articles about the named entities. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a client system, a query including a proper
name, the proper name appearing in a context in the query;
determining named entities corresponding to the proper name;
for each corresponding named entity, identifying a named entity
article about the named entity, wherein each named entity article
about a named entity is different from the named entity articles about
the other named entities;
for each corresponding named entity, determining a similarity
score between the named entity article about the named entity and the
context in the query containing the proper name,
wherein the similarity score is a measurement of correlation
between the context in the query containing the proper name and the
named entity article;
disambiguating the proper name by associating it with the
named entity article having a highest similarity score; and
providing the named entity corresponding to the named entity
article having the highest similarity score.

Claims 1, 3–6, 12–16, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Paik (US 6,263,335 B1; July 17, 2001).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Paik
and Carrasco (US 2005/0015366 A1; Jan. 20, 2005).
Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678

3
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Paik
and Wacholder (US 6,167,368; Dec. 26, 2000).1

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6–10) that Paik
does not describe the limitation “disambiguating the proper name by
associating it with the named entity article having a highest similarity
score,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the Sense Disambiguator 170 of Paik and
the Document Knowledge Representation Unit Ranker 245 of Paik
collectively correspond to the limitation “disambiguating the proper name by
associating it with the named entity article having a highest similarity
score.” (Ans. 5, 45–54.) We agree with the Examiner.
Paik relates to “[a]n information extraction system that allows users to
ask questions about documents in a database, and responds to queries by
returning possibly relevant information which is extracted from the
documents.” (Abstract.) Paik defines a “KR Unit” (knowledge
representation) as “one or more CRCs” (concept-relation-concept triples)
(col. 6, ll. 46–47) and defines a “CRC” as “two concepts linked by a dyadic
relation” (col. 6, ll. 26–28). “For instance, the sentence, ‘Georgia O'Keefe is
a painter’ can be distilled into a CRC in which O’Keefe is the first, or
subject concept, linked to painter, the second, or descriptive concept . . . .”
(Col. 6, ll. 28–31.) Figure 6 of Paik illustrates a block diagram of query

1 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejections of
claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Thus, any such arguments are
deemed to be waived.
Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678

4
processing (col. 21, ll. 61–62) that includes a Sense Disambiguator 170
(col. 22, ll. 1–7), such that “[a]ll possible interpretations of the concepts are
returned to the user at this point so that the user can select the appropriate
interpretation(s)” (col. 22, ll. 10–13). Paik explains that “[o]nce ambiguities
have been resolved, the browsing query is sent to KR database 115 to
retrieve all KR units which match the requested concept.” (Col. 24, ll. 47–
51.) Figure 9 of Paik illustrates a block diagram of a Similarity
Measurer 55, which includes a Query to Document KR Unit Similarity
Calculator 240 and a Document KR Unit Ranker 245. (Col. 22, ll. 41–43.)
Paik explains that the “Document Knowledge Representation Unit
Ranker 245 sorts and ranks the output of similarity values from the
Calculator to list the most similar KR units at the top of a ranked list, with
the least close matches at the bottom.” (Col. 23, ll. 14–17.) Thus, because
the information extraction system of Paik can extract documents through the
use of both the Sense Disambiguator 170 and the Document KR Unit
Ranker 245, based on linking a subject concept with a descriptive concept,
Paik describes the limitation “disambiguating the proper name by
associating it with the named entity article having a highest similarity
score.”
Appellants argue that “Paik does identify proper names in a query,
Paik does not teach ‘disambiguating the proper name by associating it with
the named entity article having a highest similarity score’” because “Paik
first relies on additional user interaction to select a named entity” (Br. 6) and
“the only ‘disambiguation’ of Paik is that specifically selected by a user”
(Br. 7). However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope
with claim 1, because the claim does not exclude manual “disambiguation.”
Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678

5
Appellants further argue that “[t]here is no description of the Unit
Ranker 245 output, nor the output of the Similarity Calculator 240, being
used to disambiguate a proper name[ ].” (Br. 8.) However, as discussed
previously, Paik explains that documents are extracted from the information
extraction system using the Sense Disambiguator 170 and the Document KR
Unit Ranker 245, based on linking a subject concept with a descriptive
concept.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Paik describes the
limitation “disambiguating the proper name by associating it with the named
entity article having a highest similarity score.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 5, 6, and 12–16 depend from independent claim 1,
and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 12–16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 22 and 23 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 23, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 4, separately (Br. 10–11), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely provide a
conclusory statement that Paik does not teach the features of these dependent
Appeal 2012-002601
Application 11/427,678

6
claims without a sufficient explanation as to why these dependent claims are
patentable over Paik. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”). We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which
claims 3 and 4 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 12–16, 22, and 23 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

tj