Ex Parte Gupta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

13399839 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/399,839 02/17/2012
83809 7590 02/02/2016
Qwest Communications International Inc,
1801 California Street,# 900
Denver, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shekhar Gupta
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.
020370-002800US 1977
EXAMINER
TO, BAOQUOC N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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):
efspatents@sbiplaw.com
phealy@sbiplaw.com
Qwest.Patents@centurylink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHEKHAR GUPTA
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention generally relates to collapsing search
results of a communications network, including removing search results,
such as irrelevant results, from a displayed listing based on a user selection
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CenturyLink
Intellectual Property LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
of a selection element associated with a search result. See Spec. i12. Of the
claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to highlight disputed issues.
1. A method for collapsing search results, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, at a computer, user input to perform a search
of a communications network;
performing, with the computer, the search based on the
user input to generate the search results, wherein the search
results include one or more advertisements;
displaying the search results and a plurality of selection
elements for removing each of the search results;
receiving, at the computer, a user selection of a selection
element associated with a search result;
automatically extracting, with the computer, information
from the search result to generate one or more logic
statements indicating a reason for the user selection;
prompting the user to select one or more of the one or
more logic statements that are true for the user;
determining, with the computer, irrelevant results that
are similar to the search result, in response to the one or more
logic statements selected by the user; and
collapsing, with the computer, the search results to
remove the search result and the irrelevant search results.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ghemawat et al. (US 2007 /0043721
Al; Feb. 22, 2007) (hereinafter "Ghemawat") and Ren et al. (US
2008/0021880 Al; Jan. 24, 2008) (hereinafter "Ren").
2
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
ISSUES ON APPEAL
( 1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the
cited references, and in particular Ren, teaches or suggests prompting the
user to select logic statements, as recited in claim 1.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the
cited references teaches or suggests "indicating a reason for the user
selection," as recited in claim 1.
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the
cited references teaches or suggests "logic statements," as recited in claim 1.
( 4) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the
cited references teaches or suggests "determining, with the computer,
irrelevant results that are similar to the search result," as recited in claim 1.
( 5) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the
cited references teaches or suggests "collapsing, with the computer, the
search results to remove the search result and the irrelevant search results,"
as recited in claim 1.
( 6) Whether it is appropriate for the Examiner to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Ghemawat and Ren.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we
considered all arguments made by Appellant. We find Appellant's
arguments unpersuasive and we adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
We address below the six enumerated issues for emphasis.
3
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
(i) Prompting the user to select logic statements
Appellant argues that Ren fails to teach or suggest prompting the user
to select desired logic statements. App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that Ren teaches allowing the user to select irrelevant search results
for removal, but does not teach prompting the user to do so. See id. (citing
Ren i-f 28).
In contrast, the Examiner finds that the combination of the cited
references teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. Ans. 4--5 (citing
Ghemawat Fig. 14 (teaching search results, including some selected for
removal based on information such as "remove all documents on this site");
Ren i-f 24 (teaching a "pop-up" menu for when a user highlights a search
result for removal).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination teaches or
suggests this disputed limitation. See Ghemawat Fig. 14; Ren i-f 24 (teaching
that once a drop down menu is accessed the system generates a pop-up menu
for, inter alia, removing selected content from the results); see also Reply
Br. 3 (admitting that Ren teaches a pop-up menu which seeks user
confirmation that a selected result should be removed).
(ii) Indicating a reason for the user selection
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to identify in the combination
of the cited references any teaching or suggestion of logic statements that
indicate a reason for the user selection. App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant
argues the Examiner merely identifies a logic statement "confirmation" to
remove search results without addressing the "reason" limitation. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant asserts that Ghemawat's teaching of "allowing a
4
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
user to select whether a particular document, all documents on a web site, or
a subset of related documents should be removed from the search results"
are not "reason[s] for the user selection." See Reply Br. 2.
To the contrary, the Examiner finds that the logic statement
"confirmation" and the listing of selections (e.g., "remove all documents on
this site"), which the Examiner finds are used "for forming the logic
statement," teach or suggest this disputed limitation. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Ghemawat Fig. 14; Ren i-fi-124, 28).
We agree with the Examiner's findings for this disputed limitation,
including that the listing of selections provided to the user for confirmation
teaches or suggests indicating a reason for the user selection. See Ghemawat
Fig. 14 (illustrating reasons such as "all documents on this site").
Additionally, we note that our reasoning is in accord with the Appellant's
Specification. See Spec. i169 (teaching the system can request information
clarifying why the search result was removed, such as having removed all
search results related to a particular website.).
(iii) One or more logic statements
Appellant argues that the broadest reasonable construction of "one or
more logic statements" cannot cover a confirmation of removal of irrelevant
results. App. Br. 16. Appellant instead argues the language of the claim
itself defines logic statements to mean "indicating a reason for the user
selection." See id. (citing Spec. i-fi-1 41, 55, 70, 71 ).
As discussed above with respect to "indicating a reason for the user
selection," the Examiner finds that the combination of Ghemawat and Ren
5
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans.
3--4 (citing Ghemawat Fig. 14, Ren i-fi-124, 28).
As above, we agree with the Examiner's findings and reasoning that
the combination teaches or suggests this disputed limitation.
(iv) Determining irrelevant results that are similar to the search
result
Appellant argues that "[ n ]owhere in Ren is there any teaching or
suggestion of determining irrelevant results similar to the search result."
App. Br. 18-19. Appellant asserts "Ren merely disclose[ s] that the user may
click on the irrelevant search result," and makes no mention of similar
irrelevant results. Id. at 19. The Examiner finds Ren discloses this disputed
limitation. Ans. 7-8 (citing Ren i-fi-124, 28); Final Act. 4--5 (citing
Ghemawat and Ren).
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. We disagree with
Appellant's assertion that nowhere does Ren teach or suggest determining
irrelevant results similar to the search result. See Ren Fig. 2 (illustrating
grouping content, including as designated content and content 2), i128
(teaching that "it may be the case some of the results are not relevant to the
user's needs" and that the user can remove results the user determines
irrelevant). In further support of this finding, Ghemawat teaches or suggests
determining similar results to the search results and teaches that a search
result and related results can be remove collectively. See Ghemawat Figs. 7
(illustrating the determination of similar pages to search result pages), 14
(illustrating removing a document and related documents from search
results).
6
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
( v) Collapsing, with the computer, the search results to remove the
search result and the irrelevant search results
Appellant argues that the combination fails to teach or suggest
"removing any results (on any basis) other than those manually selected by
the user." App. Br. 19. Thus, Appellant contends the combination fails to
teach or suggest this disputed limitation.
The Examiner finds that the combination teaches a user can use a
computer to remove results from the search listing. See Final Act 4--5
(citing Ren i-f 28, Fig 2 (illustrating a remove result button); Ans. 7-8.
We find Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in finding that
the combination teaches this limitation unpersuasive. We find that the
Examiner's finding comports with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
this limitation. See, e.g., Ren i-f 28, Fig 2.
(vi) Appropriateness of combining Ghemawat and Ren
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to provide sufficient
rationale for combining Ghemawat and Ren. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the two references being from the same
field of endeavor alone is insufficient to support combining these references.
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds that Ghemawat and Ren are from the same field
of endeavor and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the teachings of Ghemawat to include removing irrelevant
results as disclosed by Ren in order to allow focus for the "fruitful results."
See Ans. 7; Final Act. 5.
7
Appeal2014-002246
Application 13/399,839
We find Appellant's argument that the Examiner failed to provide
sufficient rationale for combining Ghemawat and Ren unpersuasive. We
agree with the Examiner that these references are properly combined and
find removing irrelevant results from a listing is a known method which
yields the predictable result of providing for more fruitful use of the relevant
results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (noting
that a "combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results").
CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasoning, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. Appellant did not separately argue the patentability of independent
claims 13 and 18, and, thus, we sustain the rejection of these claims as well.
Likewise, Appellant did not separately argue the patentability of the claims
that depend from these independent claims. Accordingly, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 2-12, 14--17, and 19----21.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
dw
8