Ex Parte Canoy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2018

11848046 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)

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.
11/848,046 08/30/2007 Michael-David N. CANOY QC060277 3142
12371 7590 01/25/2018
Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2018 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL-DAVID N. CANOY, CHARLES
WHEELER SWEET III, and JEFFREY JOSEPH VACCARO
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,0461
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOVAN, and MICHAEL M.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Brief 3.)
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to providing a search result based on
enhancement data and friends bias. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing search results, comprising:
receiving, at a network device, a search query initiated at an
access terminal associated with a user;
obtaining, at the network device, enhancement data that
provides a context to the search query and relates to one or more of
the access terminal, the user of the access terminal, an environment
associated with the access terminal, or any combination thereof;
performing, at the network device, a search based on the search
query and the enhancement data, wherein performing the search
comprises adding the enhancement data to the search query and
submitting the enhanced search query to a search engine configured to
search information stored on one or more computer systems;
obtaining, at the network device, a search result responsive to
the search query from the search engine, wherein the search result
comprises one or more matches between data in the enhanced search
query and the information stored on the one or more computer
systems;
determining, at the network device, a friends bias associated
with the user according to a friends bias data retrieved from a friends
database, wherein the friends database comprises a contact list stored
in the access terminal;
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 30, 2007,
2013, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 8, 2015, the
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed February 10, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed July 27, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
August 30, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
biasing, at the network device, the search result obtained from
the search engine based on the friends bias data retrieved from the
friends database; and
returning the biased search result to the access terminal.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1^18, 51, and 52 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Voon (US 2006/0218225 Al, published September 28,
2006) and Watson (US 2005/0154716 Al, published July 14, 2005). (Final
Act. 10-17.)
Claims 49 and 50 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Voon, Watson, and Bates (US 6,873,982 Bl, issued March 29,
2005). (Final Act. 18-19.)
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 11—14, 24, 33—36, 51, and 523
A. Obtaining Enhancement Data
Appellants argue Voon does not disclose or suggest the limitation of
claim 1 that recites “obtaining, at the network device, enhancement data that
provides a context to the search query and relates to one or more of the
access terminal, the user of the access terminal, an environment associated
with the access terminal, or any combination thereof,” and similar
limitations of the other independent claims. App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br. 2—4.
3 Appellants argue all the independent claims together as a group, based on
the limitations of claim 1. Thus, all the independent claims stand or fall
based on the arguments for claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
Specifically, Appellants argue “there is no disclosure or suggestion in Voon
that searching ‘against a directory listing’ includes ‘obtaining . . .
enhancement data that provides a context to the search query and relates to
one or more of the access terminal, the user of the access terminal, an
environment associated with the access terminal, or any combination
thereof.’” App. Br. 12.
“[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation during examination.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Concerning the argued claim limitation,
the Specification states “enhancement data may include, but is not limited to,
data such as location-related data corresponding to the access terminal 102,
user profile data, access terminal configuration data, and data relating to the
access terminal 102, any data relating to the user of the access terminal, any
data relating to the environment associated with the access terminal, or any
combination thereof.” Spec. ^ 37. “Enhancement data” provides context to
a query. Id.
The Examiner relies on Voon’s teaching of searching against a
directory listing in a social network environment to disclose the argued
limitation. Final Act. 10 (citing, inter alia, Voon 54). We agree with the
Examiner that this teaching of Voon discloses the claimed “obtaining . . .
enhancement data.” Specifically, Voon states “[t]o find data in a peer-to-
peer network, a search is usually run against a directory listing. The results
will include nodes that have the desired data.” Voon 54. Thus, because
Voon’s nodes reside in a social network environment,4 the nodes returned by
the search constitute “enhancement data” according to the definition of that
4 Voon uses the terms Socializer, entity, mechanism, and node
interchangeably. Voon 35.
4
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
term in the Specification, which clarifies “enhancement data” encompasses
“any data relating to the environment associated with the access terminal.”
The Examiner further finds Voon teaches performing a search while
adding interest groups’ content to the search query. Final Act. 11 (citing
Voon ^ 55). Specifically, Voon states “a member might search for content
data based on [a]n interest or sub-interest within one or more interest groups
that he may be a part of.” Voon ^ 55. We agree with the Examiner that
Voon discloses interest or interest group content that falls within the
definition of “enhancement data” in Appellants’ Specification and as set
forth in the claims at least because it is “data relating to the user of the
access terminal.” Spec. 6. Accordingly, Voon teaches the argued claim
limitation, and Appellants’ argument fails to persuade us the Examiner errs
in the rejection.5
B. Performing a Search and Obtaining a Search Result
Appellants argue because Voon allegedly does not disclose or suggest
“obtaining . . . enhancement data,” Voon cannot disclose or suggest
“performing, at the network device, a search based on the search query and
the enhancement data, wherein performing the search comprises adding the
enhancement data to the search query and submitting the enhanced search
query to a search engine configured to search information stored on one or
more computer systems,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. For reasons
explained in the previous section, we are not persuaded that Voon fails to
5 We also note in passing that the Examiner could have interpreted Voon in
multiple other ways as disclosing the claimed “enhancement data.” For
example, the “enhancement data” could be considered the network address
of the user device (Voon 34), the user’s “neighborhood” in the social
network environment (Voon ^ 54), or the user’s contact information (Voon
148).
5
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
disclose “obtaining . . . enhancement data.” Accordingly, this argument is
unpersuasive.
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that Voon does
not disclose claim l’s requirement for adding enhancement data to a search
query. App. Br. 12-14. The nodes returned from Voon’s directory search
are in turn used to query those nodes for the desired data. Voon 54. Thus,
Voon’s directory search discloses the claimed “search query” and the
returned nodes disclose the claimed “enhancement data.” Since the returned
nodes are added to the query and used to search for the desired data, we
agree with the Examiner that Voon discloses the argued claim limitation.
Final Act. 10.
Also, Voon discloses a user’s interests, or the content of interest
groups, may be added to a search query as “enhancement data.” Final Act.
11 (citing Voon 55). The user’s interests or interest groups’ content may
constitute “enhancement data,” which includes “any data relating to the user
of the access terminal” or “any data relating to the environment associated
with the access terminal” according to the Specification and the claim
requirements. Furthermore, Voon discloses that metadata for content and
interest groups includes titles, genres, keywords, and descriptions 34),
which are used for searching (]f 55). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Voon discloses the argued claim limitation.
Appellants appear to argue Voon discloses “browsing” whereas the
claims recite “performing ... a search.” Reply Br. 4-5. In this regard,
Voon states “[a] user can browse and search based on file type, file name,
keywords, and meta-data.” Voon 62. Thus, Voon discloses the claimed
“performing ... a search.”
6
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
Appellants also appear to argue Voon’s search for content data based
on interest or sub-interest is a manual process. Reply Br. 5. We disagree, as
Voon discloses the Socializer process may be embodied within a computing
device. Voon 41.
C. Biasing the Search Result and Returning the Biased Search Result
Appellants argue in Voon “there is no disclosure or suggestion that
results of the ‘search ... run against a directory listing’ are biased based on
the ‘certain metadata, such as trust, bias, opinion information and the like.’”
App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 7. However, we agree with the Examiner that Voon
discloses the claimed feature. Final Act. 12 (citing Voon 23, 54, Fig. 4).
Specifically, Voon states “[t]o find data in a peer-to-peer network, a
search is usually run against a directory listing. The results will include
nodes that have the desired data.” Voon 54. In Voon’s automated
decision making process, this search (referred to as a “query”) is conducted
using social networking devices (“Socializes”) to produce a biased search
result (“recommendation”) based on influences, opinions, or advice, and the
biases specified for them by the Socializer user. Voon 38. Particularly,
Voon states “the Socializer assigns a weight to these influences, based on the
bias (b5) that the user places on each contact for the content in an interest
group. This is illustrated in FIG. 3, as the bias factor 308.” Id. Figure 3 of
Voon is shown below:
7
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
formulate.
|then query choose next
fin context of a social network}
* .. EXt .int^rest groupsj/^nfiuence or/ set of people information / , .
"who know" / data points \ P , .
f trust levels} \ advice.........306
(interest groups}
{communicate}
V
•*>07
{bias}
weighted i
by bias **
decision or ^
action J
Figure 3 of Voon shows a decision making process cycle in a social network
in which a query of a set of people generates influence, opinions, or advice
that are weighted by bias to generate a recommendation for decision or
action.
Thus, the “recommendation” generated by Voon’s Socializer derives from a
search against a directory listing whose results are biased by a Socializer
user. As Voon teaches the argued claim feature, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in the rejection.
Furthermore, Voon states “Socializer entities are dynamically
discovered in the vicinity, with the vicinity defining the user’s
‘neighborhood.’” Voon ^ 54. Additionally, Voon states “entity notification
proactive messages can be used to communicate interest and bias
information (and other non-content data), which can be used instantly to
guide the user to preferred (via bias or interest matching) Socializer users in
the network.” Id. Considering these statements together, we understand the
cited paragraph of Voon to mean that bias information may be used to
determine the nodes of a Socializer user’s “neighborhood” so that the result
of a search against a directory listing of nodes in the “neighborhood”
necessarily produces biased search results. Accordingly, for this additional
reason, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
8
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
Appellants also argue that because Voon purportedly does not
disclose the “biasing” feature of claim 1, Voon cannot disclose the feature of
“returning the biased search result to the access terminal.” As Appellants
have not persuaded us the “biasing” is not taught or suggested by Voon, we
also find this argument unpersuasive.
D. Watson and Bates
Appellants argue Watson and Bates fail to cure the deficiencies of
Voon. App. Br. 15-16. For the stated reasons, we are not persuaded that
Voon is deficient. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ argument with respect
to Watson and Bates unpersuasive.
E. Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “receiving user feedback associated with the biased
search result and updating the friends database based on the user feedback.”
App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Voon discloses the
claimed features. Final Act. 13, Ans. 16 (Voon 4, 34, 38, Fig. 1 -
element 106). Appellants argue:
While Voon discloses a “manual decision making process”
where “feedback from these people represents information
datapoints that the person uses as influence, opinions, or advice
106 toward the ultimate decision or action 108,” there is no
disclosure or suggestion that this “feedback” is “associated with
the biased search result” or that “the friends database” is
updated “based on the user feedback.”
App. Br. 17 (discussing Voon^f 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. To the extent
Appellants are arguing that Figure 1 of Voon is directed to a manual
decision making process, whereas the one claimed is automatic, we note that
Figure 3 of Voon shows a similar decision making process which is
automated. See Voon^f 35-38. Comparison of Figures 1 and 3 of Voon
9
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
shows that several teachings from Figure l’s manual process carry over to
Figure 3’s automated process.
Also, Voon’s search query uses influence, opinions or advice (the
claimed “feedback”) from knowledgeable people 304, biased by the
Socializer user, to generate a recommendation (“biased search result”).
Voon 4, 38, Fig. 3. Thus, we disagree that Voon fails to disclose
“receiving user feedback associated with the biased search result” as
claimed.6
Regarding the claim limitation of “updating the friends database based
on the user feedback,” Voon’s objectives include “easily building a database
of consultants who know about a particular subject, and retaining the advice,
opinions and influences that a user obtains in response to a query.” Voon
^ 6; see also id. 21. Necessarily, these teachings require updating Voon’s
database based on user feedback. Further, the “consultants” may be friends
so that Voon’s database may be considered a “friends database.” Voon 3.
Accordingly, Voon teaches, or at least suggests, the argued limitation, and
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
F. Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining claims 2, 4-10,
15-23, 25-32, and 37-50, which fall with the independent claims from
which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-52 under pre-
AIA35U.S.C. § 103(a).
6 We also note that the claims do not preclude Voon’s bias information from
being considered the claimed “feedback.”
10
Appeal 2016-008158
Application 11/848,046
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
11