Ex Parte Grois

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2015

12156589 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2015)

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.
12/156,589 06/04/2008 Dan Grois 10000B/US/05 4119
99267 7590 07/27/2015
Dan Grois
Shraga Abramson Street 10, apartment 15
Beer-Sheva, 84710
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
GOFMAN, ALEX N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2015 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 DAN GROIS
____________________

Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to enabling a user to vote for a document
stored within a database. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of enabling voting for a document stored within a
database over a data network, comprising:
a. receiving, by a search engine, a user’s search query;
b. providing a search results list, according to said search
query, wherein said search results list comprises at least one
document, said at least one document assigned to a plurality of
categories and having one or more categorized scores, said one
or more categorized scores comprising at least one score
assigned with regard to at least one of said plurality of
categories associated with said at least one document, the at
least one score indicates a degree of relatedness between the at
least one document and the associated at least one category,
wherein said one or more categorized scores are assigned to
said at least one document according to at least one of the
following:
b.1. a number of links provided to said at least one
document over said data network, each of said links
having at least one categorized relevance weight thereby
enabling to increase at least one corresponding
categorized score of said at least one document according
to said at least one categorized relevance weight; and
b.2. one or more categorized scores of each
document, from which at least one link, within said
number of links, is provided to said at least one document
over said data network;
c. displaying categorized voting scales for said at least
one document, each of said categorized voting scales enabling a
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
3
user to select corresponding one or more categorized
evaluations for said at least document, resulting in a user’s
selection, wherein the categorized voting scale is displayed for
each category of said plurality of categories;
d. inputting said user’s selection and submitting said
corresponding one or more categorized evaluations for
processing by a search provider's computer, resulting in
submitted one or more categorized evaluations, thereby
enabling the user to provide input into the categorized voting
scale displayed for each category;
e. receiving said submitted one or more categorized
evaluations of the at least one document, resulting in received
one or more categorized evaluations; and
f. updating, by the search provider’s computer, at least
one of said one or more categorized scores of said at least one
document in accordance with said received one or more
categorized evaluations.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bharat US 7,783,639 Aug. 24, 2010
Mascarenhas
Chidlovskii1
US 2003/0014428 A1
US 2004/0068486 A1
Jan. 16, 2003
Apr. 8, 2004

1 Both Appellant and the Examiner incorrectly reference Chidlovskii as
“Chidlovski”.
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
4

REJECTIONS2,3
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chidlovskii, and Mascarenhas, and Bharat. Final Act. 3–
9.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Chidlovskii’s selection and deselection of documents to provide positive
and negative feedback does not involve providing an opinion for a
document with regard to a particular matter and thereby fails to teach or
suggest voting as required by claim 1. App. Br. 21.
2. Mascarenhas’s assignment of taxonomic-based indicia to documents fails
to teach or suggest assigning each document to multiple categories with a
user rating the relevancy of each document to each category as required
by the categorized voting scales of claim 1. App. Br. 22–23.
3. Bharat’s document ranking score based on the ranking scores of linking
documents fails to teach or suggest assigning categorized scores to a
target document according to categorized scores of each linking
document as required by claim 1. App. Br. 24.

2 Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–20. “A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Further, merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument,
previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for
separate patentability of the two claims. Therefore, based on Appellant’s
arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–20 based on claim 1 alone.
3 The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has
been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
5
4. “Chidlovski doesn’t teach receiving submitted one or more categorized
evaluations” or “updating one or more categorized scores in accordance
with the received one or more categorized evaluations” as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 27, 28.
5. “[I]t wouldn't be obvious to modify Chidlovski with either Mascarenhas
and/or Bharat.” Id.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–9)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 4–8) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with Contention 1, the Examiner finds Chidlovskii’s
“user feedback involv[ing] receiving information specifically directed at the
query from the user” (Chidlovskii ¶ 57) teaches or suggests displaying
categorized voting scales, inputting a user’s selection and submitting a
corresponding categorized evaluation enabling the user to provide input into
the displayed categorized voting scale as required by claim 1. Appellant
argues:
[T]he selecting relevant and unselecting irrelevant documents of
Chidlovski is not the “ . . . voting for a document . . . ” of the present
invention. By voting for a document, the user provides his opinion for
this document with regard to a particular matter, which is not
disclosed by Chidlovski. The Appellant would like to note that
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
6
Chidlovski does not use at all the term “voting”, or any its
synonyms, at his entire patent application, which strengthens the fact
that Chidlovski did not intend to provide anything that relates to the
voting.
App. Br. 21–22.
The Examiner responds that “[b]y choosing a ‘+’ or ‘-’ [according to
Chidlovskii’s process of selecting relevant and unselecting irrelevant
documents] a user . . . ‘provides his opinion for this document with regard to
a particular matter.’” Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes “[a]s such, it is clear
that Chidlovski discloses ‘the process of voting’ since the user provides
feedback to a query.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellant’s argument
unpersuasive of error. In particular, Appellant fails to provide sufficient
evidence or reasoning explaining why Chidlovskii’s disclosure of user
designation of more and less relevant documents fails to teach or suggest
voting. For example, Appellant offers no evidence that voting as required by
claim 1 is to be accorded any special meaning that would contradict the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term or that the Examiner’s interpretation of
voting is inconsistent with the Specification. We are also not persuaded of
error because Chidlovskii does not use the term “voting” in describing
selecting relevant documents. App. Br. 21. That is, in the context of claim
1, selecting a document and choosing a “+” or “-” feedback indicator would
be understood as voting. The teaching in the prior art reference need not be
ipsissimis verbis. Structural Rubber Products v. Park Rubber, 749 F.2d 707,
716 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
For the first time in the Reply Brief Appellant argues Chidlovskii fails
to teach providing a plurality of votes for a single document. Reply 4.
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
7
Because this issue was first raised in a Reply Brief, was not a response to a
new argument presented by the Examiner, and Appellant has not shown
sufficient cause as to why this issue was first raised in the Reply Brief, it is
untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI
2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Therefore, this basis for
asserting error is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b). Furthermore, even if
timely presented, the argument would be unpersuasive because Appellant is
responding to the rejection by attacking the references individually, even
though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Mascarenhas, not Chidlovskii, for
disclosing each document assigned to multiple categories with a user rating
how relevant each document is to each category. Final Act. 4.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Therefore, for the reasons supra Appellant’s contention 1 is
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contentions 2 and 3, the Examiner finds
Mascarenhas’s document database, having taxonomic-based indicia assigned
to each document, teaches or suggests each document assigned to multiple
categories. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds Chidlovski discloses
providing links to documents by providing search results (Ans. 6) and
Masacarenhas’s disclosure of a search engine which provides references to
documents using a URL associated with an original research article (i.e., the
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
8
document) teaches or suggests the link of limitation b.2 of claim 1 (Final
Act. 4, Ans. 5–6.) The Examiner further finds Bharat’s disclosure of scoring
documents based on documents which link to the scored document teaches
assigning scores based on linking documents. Final Act. 5. The Examiner
concludes the combination of Chidlovski, Mascarenhas, and Bharat teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation b.2 of claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument that Bharat fails to teach a categorized score (App. Br. 25) is
unpersuasive of error because the Examiner relies on the combination of
Chidlovskii, Mascarenhas, and Bharat, not Bharat alone, for teaching the
disputed limitation. Ans. 6. That is, even accepting Appellant’s argument
that “Bharat is talking only about a general ranking score, and not a
categorized score, according to a particular category” (App. Br. 25), we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mascarenhas’s taxonomic-based
indicia teaching of multiple categories per document in combination with
Bharat’s disclosure of document scoring teaches a categorized score.
In connection with Appellant’s contention 4 arguing the failure of
Chidlovskii to teach the submission of categorized evaluations and updating
of scores (App. Br. 27–28), Appellant is again responding to the rejection by
attacking the references individually, even though the rejection is based on
the combined teachings of the references. In particular, the Examiner relies
on Mascarenhas for disclosing each document assigned to multiple
categories with a user rating the relevancy of each document with respect to
each category. Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that “Chidlovski as
modified [according to the teachings of Mascarenhas and Barat]” teaches or
suggests the disputed steps c through f of claim 1. Ans. 5–6 (emphasis
added.) We agree with the Examiner and find unpersuasive Appellant’s
Appeal 2013-003766
Application 12/156,589
9
attack on Chidlovskii individually when the rejection is predicated upon its
combination with Mascarenhas and Bharat.
Appellant’s contention 5 is unpersuasive because it is no more than a
naked assertion of error in combining Chidlovskii with Mascarenhas and/or
Bharat without providing sufficient evidence or explanation in support of the
contention. In the absence of sufficient rebuttal, we find the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 6.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in
connection with and sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chidlovskii, and Mascarenhas, and Bharat. Because Appellant
merely repeats in connection with claims 2–20 arguments presented in
connection with claim 1, for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of
claims 2–20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 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
sl