Ex Parte Forman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2016

12618151 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/618,151 11113/2009
22879 7590 02/17/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
George Forman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82259585 6033
EXAMINER
VU,THONGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE FORMAN, EV AN R. KIRSHENBAUM,
and SHY AM SUNDAR RAJARAM
Appeal2014-003106
Application 12/618,151 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Co., LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003106
Application 12/618, 151
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20. Claims 2 and 12 were previously canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method and system for
processing web activity data. (Title).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method of processing
Web activity data, comprising:
obtaining a collection of Web activity data generated by a
plurality of users at a plurality of W ebpages, wherein the
\Vebpages are from a plurality of unaffiliated \Vebsites;
extracting a plurality of search terms from the Web
activity data and associating each of the plurality of search terms
with a corresponding W ebpage, wherein extracting the plurality
of search terms comprises extracting a target class of information
from a query field that has been identified by a classifier
generated by a training system; and
generating statistical data from the Web activity data
based, at least in part, on the search terms, the statistical data
corresponding to the online activity at one or more W ebpages.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
2
Appeal2014-003106
Application 12/618, 151
Calabria US 2005/0137939 Al June 23, 2005
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Calabria.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding Calabria teaches "extracting the plurality of search terms" which
comprises "extracting a target class of information from a query field that
has been identified by a classifier generated by a training system" (Claim 1,
emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S. c. § 102(b)
Appellants contend:
[C]alabria does not disclose a classifier generated by a training
system. Indeed, Calabria does not disclose a classifier in any
way. Rather, Calabria merely states that keyword selection can
be classified into two categories. The mere fact that something
can be classified into categories is not equivalent to a classifier
generated by a training system, which performs actions.
(App. Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 5).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants.
Although we agree with the Examiner's finding that Calabria' s
keyword selection agent 52 broadly teaches the claim term "classifier"
(Final Act. 5, citing Calabria par. 52), and the Examiner's finding Calabria's
provider of the keyword advertisement management system can refine the
procedure the system uses for keyword selection by using ROAI results to
train the system (Final Act. 3, Ans. 13, citing Calabria par. 138), we cannot
3
Appeal2014-003106
Application 12/618, 151
find any clear teaching in the sections of Calabria referenced by the
Examiner of a "classifier generated by a training system" for extracting a
target class of information, as required by claim 1, and as similarly recited in
claims 11 and 18.
Accordingly, we find the preponderance of evidence on this record
fails to support the Examiner's finding that Appellants' claim 1 is
anticipated by Calabria. We are of the view that the Examiner has not fully
developed the record to show express or inherent anticipation regarding the
contested limitation of "a classifier generated by a training system" pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and
18, which each recite the contested limitation in commensurate form ("a
classifier, which is generated by a training system"). Because we have
reversed the anticipation rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we
also reverse the anticipation rejection of each respective dependent claim on
appeal.
IV CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
4