Ex Parte Hakala et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2010

10879534 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TERO HAKALA
and JUHA LEHIKOINEN
____________
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,5341
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: March 31, 2010
____________
Before LEE E. BARRETT, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-15, 17-23, 41, and 44-51. Claims 16, 24, and 26 have
been canceled. The Examiner did not enter Appellants' amendment

1 Filed June 30, 2004, titled "Searching and Naming Items Based on
Metadata." The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

2
canceling claims 25, 27-40, 42, and 43 be canceled, but, nevertheless, treats
the claims as withdrawn. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on March 24, 2010.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to a method, apparatus, and computer readable
medium for searching and naming items based on metadata. A user
interface allows a user to select one or more stored items and display
metadata attributes for those items. As shown in Figure 2, the interface has
a browsing portion 201, a metadata visualization portion 202, a metadata
modifier portion 203, and a description portion 204. As shown in Figure 3, a
photo item 305 is selected and values of that selected items metadata
309-314 are shown. For instance, the photo of item 305 was taken in Cape
Town at the location 34.0 degrees south, 18.6 degrees east, and at a time of
12:20 pm. The user may further specify modifiers for one or more of the
metadata attributes and perform searches based on selected ones of the
metadata attributes and/or selected ones of the modifiers. For instance,
Figure 3 shows that the user has entered a modifier of +/- 10 kilometers that
modifies the location value of 34.0 degrees south, 18.6 degrees east, and has
entered a modifier of +/- 2 hours that modifies the time value of 12:20 pm.
Conforming items 303-305 are indicated with borders. In addition, a
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

3
descriptive phrase may be automatically generated for one or more items
based on one or more of the metadata attributes.

Illustrative claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below for illustration:

1. A method, comprising:

selecting an item from a plurality of items each having
associated metadata attributes;

displaying a first value of a first metadata attribute of the
selected item;

defining a first modifier that modifies the first value of the first
metadata attribute;

searching the plurality of items in accordance with the first
value and the first modifier; and

displaying a result of the searching.

The references

Chen US 6,009,442 Dec. 28, 1999
Kusama US 2002/0055943 A1 May 9, 2002
Raboczi US 2003/0061209 A1 Mar. 27, 2003

The rejections
Appellants submitted an amendment on August 23, 2007, canceling
claims 25, 27-40, 42, and 43, without making any other amendments. As
noted in the Advisory Action entered September 10, 2007, the amendment
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

4
was not entered, but the Examiner considers the claims withdrawn. We can
think of no good reason for not entering an amendment which only cancels
claims and simplifies the issues for appeal. In addition, since the Examiner's
Answer indicates agreement with Appellants' version of the status of the
claims, the statements of the rejections should have been revised to reflect
this status or it should be explained why it is not. In any case, since these
claims are not argued in the Brief, we treat them as canceled.
Claims 1-15, 17-21, 23, 41, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Raboczi.2
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Raboczi and Chen.
Claims 44-48, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raboczi and Kusama.3

ANTICIPATION
Issues
Issue 1: Does Raboczi teach "defining a first modifier that modifies
the first value of the first metadata attribute" as recited in claims 1 and 41?
Independent claim 17 contains a corresponding limitation.

2 The statement of the rejection includes canceled claims 16 and 24.
3 The statement of the rejection includes claims 25-31, 33-40, 42, 43,
and 51. Claim 26 has been canceled. We treat claims 25, 27-40, 42, and 43
as canceled pursuant to Appellants' amendment. Claim 49 is rejected as
anticipated and is not separately addressed in the obviousness rejection. We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner should have clarified the status of
the claims as requested by Appellants (Br. 6; Reply Br. 4-5).
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

5
Issue 2: Does Raboczi teach "searching the plurality of items in
accordance with the first value and the first modifier" as recited in claim 1?
Independent claim 41 contains a corresponding limitation.

Principles of law
"Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of
all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim." Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Findings of fact
Raboczi describe a user interface display for the navigation of
information stored in a directed graph structure. ¶ 0013. A user wants to
search a database of documents and/or metadata to find relevant documents.
¶ 0016. For example, the search tool may be for searching metadata to
discover relationships between electronic mail (email) messages in a
message data store. ¶¶ 0046, 0067-0068.
The user interface comprises several sections of the screen, which
vary depending on the information to be displayed. In the metadata node
view of Figure 3, area 28 includes a text entry field 40 to input a search
query (¶ 0071); metadata display area 62 is segmented into a references
area 44 which has an area 48 to display messages matching the search
criteria and a similar terms area 54 to list terms similar to the current search
term (¶¶ 0072-0074); and a main display area 58 which displays messages,
calculation results, and search refinement hints (¶ 0075).
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

6
Figure 4 shows the results of a term search. The main display area is
filled with a tabbed panel which displays various views of metadata
information. Three tabs are shown for Date & Time 66, Recipient 68, and
Sender 70. Recipient is the default tab. The count of messages is shown in
header 72, each user's name is shown on a row in the first column, and the
number of messages is shown graphically by a bar at 76. ¶¶ 0078-80.
A populated implementation is shown in Figure 4A.
When the Date & Time tab is selected as shown in Figure 5, a
graph 100 of the matching messages over time is displayed. The number of
messages per time is shown in the header 98 and the number of messages in
each time period (e.g., a month) is shown by a bar 102. The search may be
refined by specifying a date range using the selecting group 88, which has
two text areas for entering "from" and "to" dates. ¶¶ 0082-0084. Figure 5A
shows a populated implementation of Figure 5. ¶ 0085.
Figure 6 shows a resource node view (as opposed to the metadata
node view in Figures 3 and 4). Main panel 58 has a tab 106 to display a
selected message, tab 108 to display messages similar to the selected one,
and tab 110 to display information about the message thread. ¶ 0087. The
metadata display area 62 changes to show a summary 128 of metadata
information for the selected resource. ¶ 0088. The display of metadata
under each header 132 may be toggled on or off using menu control 130.
The metadata items may be selected or deselected using checkboxes to
redefine or modify a search by adding or removing the particular metadatum
from the search query. ¶ 0089.
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

7
Analysis
Issue 1
The Examiner presents two rationales as to how Raboczi teaches the
limitation of "defining a first modifier that modifies the first value of the
first metadata attribute."
First, the Examiner refers to ¶ 0084 and Figure 5A and finds that the
"modifier" corresponds to the date range selection. Final Office Action
(FOA) 3 and 25; Ans. 26.
Appellants argue that Raboczi does not modify the value of a selected
email's metadata. Br. 7. It is argued that Raboczi performs a search based
on "funding proposal" and the date range 9/1/1999-3/31/2000 and does not
search based on the value of a metadata attribute of a selected email. Br. 7.
It is argued that "[r]efining a search in Raboczi does not involve selecting a
particular email item and modifying the date metadata of that email item."
Br. 8. That is, "this date range does not modify the date attribute displayed
for any particular email in the search results" (Reply Br. 2) and, instead, "the
date range selection in Raboczi is chosen independently of the selection of
an email in the search results" (Reply Br. 2).
Initially, we note that the claim phrase "a first modifier that modifies
the first value of the first metadata attribute" does not mean that the modifier
permanently changes the value of the metadata attribute; it only modifies the
value of the metadata attribute for conducting a search. We agree with
Appellants that Figure 5A of Raboczi does not teach the claimed step of
"displaying a first value of a first metadata attribute of the selected item" and
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

8
therefore does not teach "a first modifier that modifies the first value of the
first metadata attribute." Figure 5A shows a graph of the number of emails
containing a search phrase "funding proposal" on the horizontal axis during
periods of time (e.g., months are shown) on the vertical axis over a specified
range of time. No particular email is selected. The range of dates is
specified independently of any particular email. While the end result may be
the same as selecting an email having a particular date and defining a
modifier, in the sense that both methods would search for all emails within a
range, different methods for achieving the same result may be patentable.
Therefore, Figure 5A and ¶ 0084 do not teach "defining a first modifier that
modifies the first value of the first metadata attribute [of a selected item]."
Second, the Examiner notes that ¶ 0020 of Raboczi describes that the
user is able to select and deselect specific metadata attributes to refine a
search result and the Examiner finds that "modifying" a metadata attribute
corresponds to selecting or deselecting of a metadata attribute. Ans. 26.
The Examiner refers to ¶ 0020 in the Final Office Action for the teaching of
searching and displaying the results of a search (FOA 3), but does not rely
on this paragraph for a teaching of a "modifier."
Appellants argue that "the selection or deselection of a metadata
attribute does not modify the value of that attribute, as claimed. Rather,
selection or deselection of an attribute causes that attribute to either be part
of the search query or not." Reply Br. 2
The closest drawings to the description in ¶ 0020 are Figures 6 and
6A. Figure 6A shows a particular email on the right side of the user
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

9
interface and metadata attributes associated with the selected email on the
left side of the user interface. The metadata attributes are organized under
headers 132 as shown in Figure 6 and have check boxes 136. "The
checkbox is used to redefine or modify a search by adding or removing the
particular metadatum from the search query." ¶ 0089. We agree with
Appellants that selecting or deselecting a particular metadata attribute is not
"a first modifier that modifies the first value of the first metadata attribute"
because if the attribute is selected, the attribute is used as is without
modifying the value and if the attribute is deselected, the value of the
attribute is not used at all. Thus, there is no teaching of modifying the value
of a metadata attribute.

Issue 2
The Examiner relies on the same reasoning as for Issue 1 for the
limitation of "searching the plurality of items in accordance with the first
value and the first modifier." Ans. 26, 27.
Appellants argue that a user in Raboczi may perform a key word
search to obtain a set of email items as search results, where each of those
items has an associated date, and the user may refine those search results by
specifying a date range limitation, "[h]owever, the refined search date
limitation will be only on the specified date range, not also one of the dates
of the email items in the search results." Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants that Raboczi searches only based on a
specified date range and not the date of an email and a date range. As shown
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

10
in Figure 5A, the search does not focus on a selected email. Although
Figure 6A shows a selected email, it does not teach a search based on the
date of the email and a modifier of that date since, as discussed in Issue 1,
Raboczi does not teach a modifier of a value of a metadata attribute. There
is no teaching of searching based on a value and a modifier of that value.

Conclusion
Raboczi does not teach "defining a first modifier that modifies the
first value of the first metadata attribute" as recited in claims 1 and 41.
Since this limitation is also found in independent claim 17, the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 41, and claims 2-15, 18-21, 23,
and 49 which depend therefrom, is reversed. It is therefore unnecessary to
discuss Appellants' arguments regarding the separate patentability of
dependent claims 4, 8, 9, and 14 (Br. 11; Reply Br. 3-4).
Raboczi also does not teach "searching the plurality of items in
accordance with the first value and the first modifier" as recited in claim 1.
This limitation is also present in claim 41. The rejection of independent
claims 1 and 41, and dependent claims 2-15 and 49, is reversed for this
additional reason.
OBVIOUSNESS
The Examiner finds that Raboczi does not teach that the
representations of items are "thumbnails" as recited in dependent claim 22
and relies on Chen for this feature. FOA 10. The Examiner does not rely on
Chen for the limitation of "the first modifier modifying the value of the
Appeal 2009-010788
Application 10/879,534

11
metadata attribute" in claim 17 which we find missing from Raboczi.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 22 is reversed.
Independent claims 44, 45, and 48 recite "a first modifier that
modifies the first value of the first metadata attribute." As discussed in the
analysis of Issue 1 in the anticipation rejection, this limitation is not taught
by Raboczi. The Examiner finds that Raboczi does not teach "generating a
descriptive phrase from the first metadata attribute and the first modifier" as
recited in independent claim 44 and the similar limitations in independent
claims 45 and 48 and relies on Kusama for this feature. FOA 20-24. The
Examiner does not assert that Kusama teaches the "modifier" limitation
which we have found to be missing from Raboczi. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 44-48, 50, and 51 over Raboczi and Kusama is reversed.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-15, 17-21, 23, 41, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The rejections of claims 22, 44-48, 50, and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

rwk

BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051