Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13763783 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/763,783 02/11/2013 Guoyou Chen AUS920120148US2 2024
50170 7590 12/19/2016
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
KOVACEK, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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 GUO YOU CHEN, WILLIAM B. HUBER, SU LIU, and
JENNIFER D. MULSOW
Appeal 2016-0032901
Application 13/763,7832
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—4 and 6—10, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claim 5 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants are reminded of their obligation to identify all appeals which
“involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are
known to appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or assignee, and
may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing
on the Board's decision in the pending appeal.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(h);
see also In re Guoyou Chen, Appeal No. 2016-003267 (PTAB).
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a data processing
method “for performing dynamic translation substitution based on real-time
analysis of user language related activities.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below with the key limitations
emphasized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, in a data processing system, for translating
messages output by processes associated with the data
processing system, comprising:
automatically tracking, by a processor in the data
processing system, language based user activities occurring via
the computing device to at least one other computing device via
a communication connection;
automatically analyzing, by a processor, the language
based user activities to determine a relative priority ordering of
one or more languages used by a user performing the user
activities;
automatically generating, by the processor, a sequence of
preferred language translation substitutions for outputting
messages based on results of the analysis, wherein the sequence
comprises two or more preferred language translation
substitutions for outputting the messages;
automatically applying, by the processor, the sequence to
a received message from a process associated with the computing
device to generate a translated message using one of the preferred
language translation substitutions in the sequence of preferred
language translation substitutions, wherein the computer
readable program to automatically apply the sequence to the
received message further causes the computing device to:
traversing, by the processor, in a sequence order, the
preferred language translation substitutions of the
sequence;
for each preferred language translation substitution
in the sequence order:
determining, by the processor, whether a
source of the received message has a translation
2
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
catalog file corresponding to the first preferred
language translation substitution in the sequence
order, wherein each translation catalog file
comprises a translation in an associated language;
responsive to a failure of the source of the
received message having the translation catalog file
corresponding to the first preferred language
translation substitution in the sequence order
determining, by the processor, whether the source
of the received message has a translation catalog
file corresponding to the next preferred language
translation substitution in the sequence order; and
responsive to the source of the received
message having the translation catalog file
corresponding to the next preferred language
translation substitution in the sequence order,
selecting, by the processor, the next preferred
language translation substitution as a preferred
language translation substitution to use in
generating the translated message; and
generating, by the processor, the translated message
using the selected preferred language translation
substitution to translate the received message into a
different language from a language in which the received
nlessage is received; and
outputting, by the processor, the translated message
via an output device of the computing device.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein automatically applying the
automatically determined sequence to a received message from
a process by overriding a user defined sequence of preferred
translation substitutions and giving priority to the automatically
determined sequence.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
3
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Godoy et al. US 2003/0046056 Al Mar. 6, 2003
Prajapat et al. US 2007/0168450 Al July 19, 2007
Waibel et al. US 2009/0281789 Al Nov. 12, 2009
Buryak et al. US 8,788,259 B1 July 22, 2014
filed June 30,
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 and 6—10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Buryak in view of Godoy and Prajapat. Final
Act. 4—14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buryak in view of Godoy, Prajapat, and Waibel. Final
Act. 14-15.
Claim 1^4 and 6—10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 11—20 of co-pending Application
No. 13/528,895.3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred.4 In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
3 Although the Final Action identifies claims 1—10 as rejected on this ground
(Final Act. 21; see also App. Br. 30), claim 5 has been cancelled.
4 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellants and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 27, 2015);
the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 27, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar.
12, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Dec. 1, 2015) for the
respective details.
4
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Claims 1—3, 7, and 8 (Section 103 Rejection)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Buryak teaches the
“automatically generating” limitation recited in claim l.* * * * 5 App. Br. 6—13;
Reply Br. 2—11. According to Appellants, “the instant claims are directed to
a sequence of preferred language translation substitutions for outputting
messages, where there are two or more translation substitutions for the
preferred language.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants further argue that preferred
language translation substitutions are not a list of preferred languages
selected by the user but, instead, are “translation substitutions for the
preferred language” based on the results of an analysis. Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellants, Buryak does not teach that limitation; instead,
Buryak merely teaches a list of preferred language. App. Br. 8—9, 10-11;
Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds Buryak teaches:
obtaining] a set of preferred languages for the user; language
indicators may be weighted, averaged, or otherwise analyzed to
determine one or more languages that will likely be preferred by
the user; preferred languages may be ordered according to a
determined likelihood that each language is the user’s preferred
language.
Final Act. 5 (citing Buryak 1:53—60, 4:18—24, 6:64—66); see also Ans. 6
(citing Buryak 6:36-45, 6:64—66, 7:2—5, 7:45—52). The Examiner further
finds Buryak teaches “confidence scores to determine a set of preferred
5 Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Prajapat and Godoy
teach the disputed limitation. See App. Br. 9, 11—13. However, because we
find the Examiner did not err in finding Buryak teaches the disputed
limitation, we need not address the Examiner’s alternative grounds and
Appellants’ arguments regarding the other references are moot.
5
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
languages for a user [and] identifying the preferred languages relative to
other languages.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Buryak Fig. 6, 10:16—20, 10:28—32,
11:17—23). The Examiner finds, based on those teachings, Buryak teaches
the “automatically generating” limitation recited in claim 1. Final Act 8; see
also Ans. 4—6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred. Although Buryak teaches using an “explicit user preference” if one
exists, Buryak also teaches generating a list of additional preferred
languages based on various factors such as “email language, browser
history, and social network language.” Buryak 6:16-45. That list of
additional preferred languages — a list of potential languages for
translations that are not selected by the user — is a “sequence of preferred
language translation substitutions” as recited in claim 1. Although Buryak
uses different language, there is no requirement in an obviousness analysis
for the prior art to “contain a description of the subject matter of the
appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.'1'’ In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090
(CCPA 1978).
Appellants further argue that because the Examiner also finds Prajapat
teaches the disputed limitation, the Examiner acknowledges that there are
deficiencies in the findings regarding Buryak. App Br. 9. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. As the
Examiner notes, and we agree, just “because Prajapat provides teachings that
can be applied to particular limitations also taught by Buryak does not mean
that Buryak is admitted to be deficient in this regard. It simply means that
both references provide teachings applicable to one or more of the same
limitations of the claim language.” Ans. 7.
6
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Appellants also argues that if the user is not multilingual, then Buryak
“only utilizes the identified primary preferred language as the language with
which to perform translations.” App. Br. 8. Claim 1 is directed to computer
readable instructions that causes a computer device to perform certain steps.
Appellants’ argument ignores the instructions as a whole and focuses on
what happens in a limited circumstance. That is, Appellants do not address
the situation where the user is multilingual and has only identified one
language as a preferred language. See Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
841 F.3d 995, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It does not matter that the use of
alphabetical order for locations would not always result in farther-over-
nearer ordering. It is enough that the combination would sometimes perform
all the method steps, including farther-over-nearer ordering.”) (citing
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
2003)). Because Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope
of the claims, it is unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982).
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Godoy teaches
the “determining”, “responsive to a failure” and “responsive to the source”
limitations recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13—16; Reply Br. 11—15. According
to Appellants, Godoy does not teach that the source of the received messages
has the “translation catalog file.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 13.
The Examiner finds Buryak teaches “the sequence of preferred
language translation substitution” and the “received message” and Godoy
teaches the steps of determining if there is a translations corresponding to a
specific list of languages. Final Act. 6—8.
7
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or ah of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants’ argument focuses solely on the
teachings of Godoy and does not address the combined teachings of Buryak
and Godoy, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Buryak in view of Godoy and Prajapat, along with the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, which are not argued separately.
Claim 6 (Section 103 Rejection)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Buryak teaches
“generat[ing] the translated message by utilizing the translation catalog file
associated with the source of the received message which matches the
selected preferred language translation substitution,” as recited in claim 6.
App. Br. 17—18. Instead, according to Appellants, Buryak teaches using a
translation catalog file. Id
The Examiner finds the combination of “Buryak in view of Godoy
and in further view of Prajapat discloses or renders obvious all limitations of
claim 11 as applied above,” and that Buryak, when applied to that
combination, teaches the additional limitation of claim 6. Final Act. 11.
8
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Specifically, the Examiner finds Buryak teaches “providing said output in
the preferred language.” Id.
Because Appellants’ argument is directed to Buryak alone and not the
combination of the teachings of the three references as applied by the
Examiner, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. See Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being
unpatentable over Buryak in view of Godoy and Prajapat.
Claim 9 (Section 103 Rejection)
Appellants argue because “Buryak merely utilizes the identified user’s
primary preferred language, which may or may not be based on the user
preference,” it does not teach “providing a priority of a user defined
sequence of preferred translation substitutions over the automatically
determined sequence,” as recited in claim 19. App Br. 18—20.
The Examiner finds Buryak teaches “an exemplary order in which a
user’s explicit preference is given highest priority in the order of preferred
languages.” Final Act. 13 (citing Buryak 6:15—18).
We agree with the Examiner. Buryak teaches various rules to
determine which language to use, including a user selected language.
Buryak 5:65—6:7. Under those rules, if the user selects a language, the
selected language is used over the preferred languages that may be generated
based on “email language, browser history, and social network language.”
Buryak 6:17—18; accord App. Br. 19 (“In this section, Buryak describes that
the rule set specifies an order in which obtained language indicators should
9
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
be considered, for example, explicit user preference, email language,
browser history, and social network language. That is, an explicit user
preference language indicator may be the highest-ordered, the email
language indicator the second-highest, and so on.”). In other words, the user
selected language is used and not the generated sequence of preferred
language translation substitutions.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as being
unpatentable over Buryak in view of Godoy and Prajapat.
Claim 10 (Section 103 Rejection)
Appellants argue Buryak describes various rules for determining a
primary preferred language, such as being “based on a several language
indicators, such as counting the number of indicators that suggest each
language.” App. Br. 21 (citing Buryak 6:15—18, 6:37-45). However,
Appellants argue because “none of these sections override a user defined
sequence of preferred translation substitutions and give priority to the
automatically determined sequence,” the Examiner erred in finding Buryak
teaches the additional limitation of claim 10. App. Br. 21—22.
The Examiner finds Buryak teaches “that the rules may assign any
order to the indicators [and] an exemplary order in which a user’s explicit
preference is given highest priority in the order of preferred languages.”
Final Act. 14—15 (citing Buryak 6:3—4, 15—18, 37—45). The Examiner
further finds none of the rules “in the example [use] explicit user
preference.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
10
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Buryak teaches “overriding a user defined sequence of preferred translation
substitutions and giving priority to the automatically determined sequence,”
as recited in claim 10. The only specific set of rules in the cited section of
Buryak indicates that the “explicit user preference language indicator may
be the highest ordered” and that other indicators are used “[i]f no explicit
user preference indicator exists.” Buryak 6:15—36. The cited section of
Buryak does not teach or suggest overriding that explicit user preference.
Therefore, based on the current record, we conclude that the Examiner’s
finding is not supported by Buryak.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 4 (Section 103 Rejection)
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants merely contend that
because the additional reference used in the rejections of that claim (Waibel)
does not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied against claim
11, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these
claims. App. Br. 22—23. Because we determine that the rejection of claim
11 is not erroneous, we sustain the rejection of this claim.
Provisional Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants “request that this provisional rejection be held in abeyance
until such time as one or both of the co-pending applications are indicated to
be allowable.” App. Br. 23. We decline to do so as the Appeal Brief "shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of the rejection contested
by appellant.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (emphasis added).
11
Appeal 2016-003290
Application 13/763,783
Appellants have not identified any errors in the Examiners
conclusions regarding the provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection. “If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue —
or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general
matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the provisional rejection of claims 1—4
and 6—10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 11—20
of co-pending Application No. 13/528,895.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—4 and 6—9.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claim 10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1—10 of
co-pending Application No. 13/528,895.
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable.
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
12