Ex Parte Grandhi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

12398957 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/398,957 0310512009 Roopnath Grandhi
49845 7590 10/18/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
2043.563US 1 1099
EXAMINER
MUELLER, KURT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ROOPNATH GRANDHI, RAGHAV GUPTA,
NEELAKANTAN SUNDARESAN, DENIS GOLOVNY A, and
JEFFREY OLSON
Appeal 2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-31, which are all the claims
pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify eBay, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to enhancing search capabilities in a
network accessible information resource including generation of a data
dictionary to identify data items stored in the information resource. Spec. i-f
6.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a request for at least one of a plurality of image
processing services, the request including image data;
determining a category of products corresponding to the
image data;
comparing the image data to a plurality of products stored
in a database of products in the category;
identifying, using a processor of a machine, at least one
product from the database of products that matches the image
data;
retrieving product information, from the database of
products, describing the at least one product; and
generating, in an automated operation without user
intervention, at least one product listing for the at least one
product matching the image data using the product information
for the at least one product.
The Rejections
Claims 1--4, 7, 10-19, 22-26, 28-30, 32, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Armitage (US 2007/0133947 Al; June 14, 2007).
Claims 5, 6, 20, 21, 31, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Armitage and Neven (US 2006/0240862 Al; Oct. 26, 2006).
2
Appeal2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Armitage and
Kaneko (US 2002/0107737 Al; Aug. 8, 2002).
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Armitage
and Zimstein (US 2004/0019643 Al; Jan. 29, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Appellants argue Armitage does not disclose the claimed "category of
products" and "database of products" because "Armitage merely presents a
process for organizing and grouping images stored in an image database to
facilitate a user search for visually similar images." App. Br. 13-16; Reply
Br. 2 (emphasis removed). Appellants also argue "Armitage only describes
presenting the retrieved images," rather than generating a product listing as
claimed. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are unpersuaded
by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
First, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Armitage describes the
claimed "category of products" and "database of products." Final Act. 7;
Ans. 4. More specifically, Armitage describes an image database (i.e.
database of products) "organized into clusters, or families. Each family
contains all of the images within a selected threshold of visual similarity."
Armitage i-f 39. Each family of images (i.e. category of products) includes "a
representative-the 'father node'" that is presented in a result set to the user
and allows the user "to 'drill down' into the family and review more
3
Appeal2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
members of the family if desired." Id. As the Examiner correctly cites,
Armitage further discloses a "Search for Items for Purchase (e.g. Shopping
and Auction)" functionality in which "an image search capability, such as
that described above, is used to identify items for purchase." Ans. 4 (citing
Armitage i-fi-1 7 4--7 6). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Armitage' s database of images and families of images, wherein the images
are used to identify items for purchase, meet the claimed "category of
products" and "database of products."
Appellants assert a "group of visually similar images as provided by
Armitage, is clearly not the same as" the claimed category of products and
database of products. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument because it reduces to an assertion that the claim
language is not recited verbatim in Armitage. Anticipation, however, is not
an ipsissimis verb is test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
claimed "product listing." App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7. Appellants contend,
"one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the recitation of the term
'product listing' in the claims to mean a publication including, concerning or
pertaining to an offer or advertisement of a product for sale, as is also
consistent with the plain meaning of the term." App. Br. 20. In support of
this construction, Appellants proffer three exemplary statements from the
Specification. Id. at 19-20 (citing, Spec. i-fi-1 8, 108, and 116).
We do not read into the claim language exemplary, non-limiting
statements from the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
4
Appeal2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the Specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where, as
here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be
given its ordinary meaning. In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In light of the foregoing principles, we decline to construe the claimed
"product listing" as Appellants urge because to do so would import into the
claim language limitations based on the non-limiting examples identified by
Appellants. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1369. Therefore, Appellants fail to
explain persuasively why the claimed "generating ... at least one product
listing" is not disclosed by Armitage' s "compiling the matching images into
a set of matching images" including the representative "father" node of an
image family, wherein the images "identify items for purchase." See
Armitage, i-fi-f 15, 39, 76.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claim 1. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims 2--4, 7,
10-19, 22-26, 28-30, 32, and 35. App. Br. 21. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of these claims.
Obviousness
Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims 5, 6, 8, 9,
20, 21, 27, 31, 33, and 34 beyond those discussed above in the context of
independent claim 1. App. Br. 21-23. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these claims.
5
Appeal2015-004634
Application 12/398,957
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2--4, 7, 10-19,
22-26, 28-30, 32, and 35 as anticipated.
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 20, 21,
27, 31, 33, and 34 as rendered obvious.
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
6