13491183 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2017

13491183 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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. 13/491,183 06/07/2012 Raghav Gupta 2043.337US3 4245 49845 7590 03/27/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER FAN, SHIOW-JY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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 Ex parte RAGHAV GUPTA and SICHUN XU Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,18s1 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 9-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is EBAY Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,183 Invention The claims are directed to re-sorting search results based on weights applied to categories. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: performing a search to produce search results; displaying the search results to a user; rendering a respective user interface element for each category in a subset of categories from a plurality of categories, categories in the plurality of categories being used to determine demand, the demand is used to sort the search results, the demand based on tracked user activity with respect to keywords for a plurality of users, the tracked user activity including the subset of categories, and the subset of categories include clicks, titles, keyword descriptions, pictures available, seller ratings, relevancy, price range, and time; receiving a respective user-specified weighting corresponding to each category in the subset of categories; applying, using a hardware processor, the respective user- specified weighting to its respective category; and re-sorting, offline at a client machine of the user, the search results based on the applied weightings. Applied Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sundaresan US 2003/0033299 A1 Feb. 13, 2003 Ford et al. US 2003/0195877 A1 Oct. 16, 2003 2 Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,183 Micaelian et al. Liang US 6,714,929 B1 Mar. 30, 2004 US 2005/0160107 Al July 21, 2005 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liang, Ford, and Sundaresan. Final Act. 7—19. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liang, Ford, Sundaresan, and Micaelian. Id. at 19-20. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—20) and the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5—9). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Claims 1, 10, and 19 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Sundaresan teaches “re-sorting, offline at a client machine of the user, the search results based on the applied weightings,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19. App. Br. 8—13; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically, Appellants argue Sundaresan’s off-line ranking system 520 “has nothing to do with ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,183 sorting results at a client’s machine after the search results have been received by the client machine,” i.e., Sundaresan’s off-line ranking system does not re-sort search results. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellants argue Sundaresan’s off-line ranking system 520 is not “the client machine recited in the claims, namely the machine of the user requesting and receiving those search results.” Reply Br. 3. Additionally, Appellants argue that “all of the re [-] sorting that may be done in Sundaresan, is occurring on the server,” i.e., Sundaresan’s result sorter 140 is provided via an online system. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3^4. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Liang re- ranks, i.e., “re-sorts,” search results. Final Act. 10 (citing Liang || 70-72). Indeed, Liang teaches that, after a user obtains default ranked search results, the user “click[s] on a different ranking method . . . and the updated search results can be displayed in results list 320 and ranked according to the ranking method chosen by the user.” Liang 172. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Sundaresan teaches an off-line ranking system 520 which “can be a [user’s] client machine.” Ans. 8—9; Final Act. 10 (citing Sundaresan || 45—48, Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Liang, in light of Sundaresan, resulting in a system in which a client’s “off-line ranking system [is used] to re-sort the search results.” Final Act. 10. Appellants’ argument that Sundaresan alone does not teach offline re sorting (App. Br. 19-20, Reply Br. 4) is not persuasive because it attacks Sundaresan individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references, i.e., Liang and Sundaresan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted). In particular, Appellants have not 4 Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,183 persuasively addressed the Examiner’s application of Sundaresan’s offline ranking to Liang’s re-ranked search results such that Liang’s re-ranked search results are re-ranked, i.e., re-sorted, offline. Linal Act. 10. Lurthermore, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us an ordinarily skilled artsian would not have found it obvious for the user’s client machine to perform the off-line re-sorting. As the Examiner points out (see Linal Act. 5), Sundaresan teaches that user clients request rankings and user clients further provide the information which Sundaresan’s ranking system uses to rank results (see Sundaresan || 8, 33, 35); accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rank results using the machine which requests the ranking and provides the information the ranking is based on, i.e., the user’s client. Additionally, Appellants’ arguments that Sundaresan’s result sorter 140 is online (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3 4) do not address the Examiner’s reliance on Sundaresan’s off-line ranking system 520 (Final Act. 10). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Liang and Sundaresan teaches “re-sorting, offline at a client machine of the user, the search results based on the applied weightings,” within the meaning of claims 1,10, and 19. Remaining Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 which depend from claims 1, 10, and 19. See App. Br. 13—14. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 5 Appeal 2016-005414 Application 13/491,183 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, and 16-20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19. 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