Ex Parte Gustafson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201612341501 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/341,501 12/22/2008 Steven Matt Gustafson 37106 7590 09/27/2016 FLETCHER YODER P,C P.O. Box 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 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. 229371-1 (NBCU:0012)YOD 1028 EXAMINER UDDIN, MDI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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 Exparte STEVEN MATT GUSTAFSON, SAMIT PAUL, BABU OZHUR NARAYANAN, VINEEL CHANDRAKANTH GUJJAR, and JAGANNADAN V ARADARAJAN Appeal2014-001320 Application 12/341,501 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. KUivIAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-001320 Application 12/341,501 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-13 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method for conducting a computerized search, compnsmg: receiving at a processor a user query, a perspective representative of a demographic of a user making the user query, and a term associated with the perspective; conducting via the processor a first search based on the user query; expanding via the processor the term to an expanded term list; analyzing via the processor the first search results based on the expanded term list to determine potential modifications to the user query; modifying via the processor the user query based on the potential modifications; and conducting via the processor a second search based on the modified user query. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2010/0145939 Al, June 10, 2010) in view of Golan (US 2009/0100015 Al, Apr. 16, 2009). Final Act. 3-7. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar and Golan, in the view of Williams (US 2008/0109416 Al, May 8, 2008). Final Act. 7-8. 2 Appeal2014-001320 Application 12/341,501 Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar and Golan, in the view of Grois (US 2008/0250105 Al, Oct. 9, 2008). Final Act. 8-10. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar and Golan, in the view of Murray (US 2009/0307207 Al, Dec. 10, 2009). Final Act. 10-11. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 20 as being obvious over Kumar and Golan? ANALYSIS Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited in the rejected claims. 1 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on pages 2 through 10 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's responses and concur with the Examiner's findings and 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 and (2) the reasons set forth by the 1 We refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 15, 2013, and the Reply Brief dated October 30, 2013. 3 Appeal2014-001320 Application 12/341,501 Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3-11; see Ans. 2-10. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and 20 are 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 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation