Ex Parte Jitkoff et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

12851879 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/851,879 08/06/2010
101874 7590 06/04/2019
HONIGMAN LLP-GOOGLE
DOCKETING DEPARTMENT
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Nicholas Jitkoff
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.
231441-428341 2669
EXAMINER
FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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):
google@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN NICHOLAS JITKOFF,
MICHAEL J. LEBEAU, WILLIAM J. BYRNE, and
DAVID P. SINGLETON
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 21-29, 40-45, 49-52 and 54. Claims 1-20, 30-39, 46-
48, and 53 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Google Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a state-dependent query response. More
specifically, the claims recite a query response procedure performed on a
computing device which is capable of audio output. Upon receiving a search
results page, the computing device makes two determinations. First, it
determines that the device is in an audible output state. Second, it
determines that the search results include a summary natural language
response which is the server's attempt to answer the query. When both of
those determinations are made, the computing device generates a human-
understandable, audible output representative of the summary natural
language response, and outputs it at the same time the results page is
displayed on the device. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
21. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a search results page
that is responsive to a natural language query;
determining, by the computing device, (i) that the
computing device is in an audible output state, and (ii) that in
addition to search results, the search results page includes a
summarized natural language query response that represents a
server system's attempt to answer the natural language query;
in response to determining, by the computing device, (i)
that the computing device is in the audible output state, and (ii)
that in addition to search results, the search results page includes
the summarized natural language query response that represents
the server system's attempt to answer the natural language query,
generating, by the computing device, a human-understandable,
audio representation of the summarized natural language query
response; and
providing, by the computing device, the human-
understandable, audio representation of the summarized natural
2
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
language query response for audible output concurrently with
providing the search results page.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Huettner et al.
Ami et al.
Ra vikumar et al.
US 2003/0130894 Al July 10, 2003
US 2007 /0233663 Al Oct. 4, 2007
US 2009/0192988 Al July 30, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 21-24, 26-29, 40-43, 45, 50-52 and 54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ami and Ravikumar. Final
Act. 2-8.
Claims 25, 44, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Ami, Ravikumar, and Huettner. Final Act. 8-10.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ami and Ravikumar
teach or suggest "generating, by the computing device, a human-
understandable, audio representation of the summarized natural language
query response," in response to determining that "in addition to search
results, the search results page includes the summarized natural language
query response that represents the server system's attempt to answer the
natural language query," as recited in claim 21?
3
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ami and Huettner
teach that a "summarized natural language query response included in the
search results page includes (a) words that are specified by a template," as
recited in claim 25?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner relies primarily on Ami. Final
Act. 3--4. Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds that Ami's use of
special input criteria which can be output as audio data renders obvious the
claim limitation teaches "generating, by the computing device, a human-
understandable, audio representation of the summarized natural language
query response" in response to determining that "in addition to search
results, the search results page includes the summarized natural language
query response that represents the [ ] system's attempt to answer the natural
language query." Final Act. 3--4 (citing Ami ,r,r 44--47, 106-108). The
Examiner concedes that Ami does not explicitly teach that the "system" is a
"server system," and introduces Ravikumar to address this deficiency. Final
Act. 4 ( citing Ravikumar ,r,r 16, 20). The Examiner further explains that
Figures 12-14 of Ami demonstrate that Ami teaches using special search
criteria to generate a summarized query response that is included alongside
the base search results, and then outputting the special search criteria result
in an audio format. Ans. 3 (citing Ami Figs. 12-14).
Appellants assert that the cited portions of Ami do not "describe that
'an audio representation of the summarized natural language query response'
(or, quoting Ami, 'a short sentence') is generated or output 'in response to
4
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
determining . . . that in addition to search results, the search results page
includes the summarized natural language query response that represents the
server system's attempt to answer the natural language query."' App. Br. 6.
Appellants argue the examples provided in Ami describe only that audio
output is used when a predetermined period of time has elapsed ( citing Ami
,r 106), when the user indicates that a page should be turned in the screen
display ( citing Ami ,r 106), and when the user has already obtained the
necessary information from the search ( citing Ami ,r,r 107-108).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments; rather, we are
persuaded by the Examiner that the prior art teaches the argued limitations.
Appellants' claim 1 requires that the computing device make two
determinations and output the search result as audio on that basis: (1) that
the computing device is in the audible output state, and (2) that in addition to
search results the search results page includes the summarized natural
language query response. Appellants do not dispute that Ami teaches the
first determination. Rather, Appellants argue that Ami does not teach the
second determination.
Ami generally relates to processing search queries and outputting
search results. Ami, Abstract. Ami discloses a system in which a "search
processing unit 120 conducts an information search according to one or
more search criteria that have been input by the user." Ami ,r 4 7. Ami
further describes modifying the input search criteria to create special search
criteria which creates separate search results-results additional to those
search results returned based on the input search criteria. Ami ,r,r 49, 51
("search results based on the input search criteria and the search results
based on the special search criteria"). Ami teaches receiving search query
5
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
inputs and "adjust[ing] the contents of an output so that the output is in a
form that is suitable for an audio output." Ami ,r 45. Ami further teaches
"[a]n example of a form that is suitable for an audio output is an output in a
short sentence." Ami ,r 45. When a search result based on the special search
criteria is present, the system generates an audio output of the short
sentence, and outputs it along with the search results. Ami ,r 106 ("[T]he
search result based on the special search criteria is output, in the form of
audio ... at the same time when the search results based on the input search
criteria are displayed on the display screen.").
Appellants assert that there is no "determination" made "that in
addition to search results, the search results page includes the summarized
natural language query response that represents the server system's attempt
to answer the natural language query." However, because the special search
criteria result is a short sentence (i.e., a "natural language query response"),
and because the audio output is generated only when the special search
criteria returns a result, we agree with the Examiner that Ami teaches that
the "audio representation of the summarized natural language response" is in
response to determining that "in addition to search results, the search results
page includes the summarized natural language query response that
represents the server system's attempt to answer the natural language
query." Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and we sustain its rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Other than
claim 25 discussed below, Appellants do not offer separate arguments for
any other claim. As such, we treat claim 21 as representative of claims 22-
24, 26-29, 40-45, 49-52, and 54, and we also sustain their rejections.
6
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
Second Issue
Claim 25, which depends from claim 21, stands rejected as obvious
over Ami, Ravikumar, and Huettner, and recites the limitation:
wherein the summarized natural language query response
included in the search results page, includes (a) words that are
specified by a template for generating a summarized natural
language query response from one or more documents that have
been determined to be responsive to a natural language query,
and (b) words that are not specified by the template for
generating the summarized natural language query response, but
that instead are specified by the one of the documents.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds that Ami and Ravikumar teach the use of
templates to create content summaries. Final Act. 8 ( citing Ami ,r 52 and
Ravikumar ,r,r 28, 50). The Examiner finds that while Ami and Ravikumar
do not "expressly teach using templates including and lacking words in
templates for generating data," Huettner "teaches selecting words from
templates." Final Act. 8. (citing Huettner ,r,r 17, 19, 45). The Examiner
concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art of the time of the invention to combine the 'audible-output' capable
search engine of Ami/Ravikumar with a sentence template converting
technique for audio outputs such as in Huettner system for data conversion
to audio." Final Act. 8-9.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Huettner's templates do
not summarize any natural language query response, nor do they include
words that are specified by a template, or words that are not specified by the
template and instead are specified by one of the documents. App. Br. 7-8.
Appellants assert that Huettner's templates consist of pointers to sub-
7
Appeal2017-009331
Application 12/851,879
templates, and that they ultimately resolve to audio and video segments.
App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants.
The templates described in Huettner relate to collections of audio
and/or video segments that can be combined to form phrases, sentences, and
paragraphs. We do not discern in Huettner, nor does the Examiner
adequately explain, how the templates in Huettner are used to generate
natural language summary which include both "words that are specified by a
template ... and words that are not specified by the template ... but that
instead are specified by the one of the documents." Accordingly, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding claim 25 is rendered obvious by
Ami, Ravikumar, and Huettner, and we do not sustain its rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-24, 26-29, 40-
45, 49-52 and 54.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8