Ex Parte Kirkby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

12296208 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/296,208 12/07/2010 Stephen Denis Kirkby
79340 7590 06/04/2018
MANNA VA & KANG, P.C.
3201 Jermantown Road
SUITE 525
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
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.
D07-167/01995-00/US 5384
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
ASHOKM@MANNA V AKANG.COM
docketing@mannavakang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN DENIS KIRKBY and PETER KELLETT
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, 17, and 18, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Accenture Global Services
Limited, established under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally "provides a
method of validating results of a host search engine, said method including
the steps of scanning all data objects deliverable via a web interface and
executing a matching engine to generate a report set containing content
missed by said host search engine." Spec. 2:26-30. 2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below ( with the disputed
limitation emphasized in italics):
1. A method of validating results of a host search engine, said
method including the steps of:
scanning, by a scanning engine, web pages of a web-site;
an exterior image sensor for capturing a first image
directed externally of the vehicle with a first field of view;
identifying, from the scanning, data objects including
words on the web pages of the web-site;
indexing, by an index engine executed by a processor, the
data objects identified in the web pages of the web-site, wherein
the index of the data objects includes the web pages of the web-
site associated with the data objects;
validating the indexing of the data objects, wherein the
validating comprises:
determining, by the index engine, unique words
from the index of the data objects by implementing a density
analysis to find words in the index that have a low frequency of
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed July 13, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Jan. 17, 2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply
Brief filed July 12, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May
17, 2017 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed Oct. 6, 2008
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
occurrence on the web pages compared to other words on the
web pages and identifying the low-frequency words as the
unique words;
inserting the unique words determined from the
index of the data objects into a search field of a host search
engine, wherein the host search engine generates a search result,
including web pages of the web-site, based on the inserted unique
words;
receiving the search result including the web pages
located by the host search engine;
comparing, by a matching engine executed by the
processor, the web pages located by the host search engine to a
set of web pages recorded in the index of the data
objects from which the unique words were determined;
based on the comparison, identifying web pages of
the web-site recorded in the index that are not located by the host
search engine; and
generating a report containing the web pages that
were not located by said host search engine.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Amitay et al. (US 2007 /0265999 A 1;
published Nov. 15, 2007) ("Amitay"), Troyanova et al. (US 2002/0022955
Al; published Feb. 21, 2002) ("Troyanova"), and Dey et al. (US
2003/0061028 Al; published Mar. 27, 2003) ("Dey").
Claims 4---6, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Amitay, Troyanova, Dey, and Dogl et al. (US
2004/0103090 Al; published May 27, 2004) ("Dogl").
3
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' arguments is whether the
combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey teaches or suggests
based on the comparison, identifying web pages of the web-site
recorded in the index that are not located by the host search
engme,
as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in
independent claims 11 and 15.
The Examiner finds the combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey
teaches or suggests the validating step of claim 1 "that comprises the steps of
determining, inserting, receiving, comparing, identifying, and generating a
report." Ans. 2-6. The Examiner finds that Amitay teaches "a 'utility' that
monitors and analyzes the search engine and even search results in order to
make sure the best possible results have been found and presented." Ans. 4,
9; see also, Final Act. 4 (citing Amitay ,r,r 27, 28, 72, 85). Specifically, the
Examiner finds paragraph 72 of Amitay "discloses identifying [ reporting]
'missing' content and the 'utility' is read on the 'matching engine."' Ans. 9.
The Examiner also finds that Amitay teaches web crawling or scanning
webpages to create an index comprising "data object[ s] and website
associated [with] the data object[ s]." Ans. 4 ( citing Amitay Abstract, ,r,r 3-
5, 7, 9-12, 24--26). The Examiner finds that Troyanova teaches synonym
extension of search queries with validation of an index. Ans. 4 ( citing
Troyanova Abstract). In particular, the Examiner finds Troyanova teaches
"generating lists { read on index} that are used in the validation module and
the validation model can form a list of validated action objects from the list
4
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
SAO KB." 3 Ans. 4 (citing Troyanova ,r,r 42, 43, 65). The Examiner further
finds that the "validation module of Troyanova performs the steps that are
disclosed in claim 1 for 'validating the indexing of data objects,' with the
exception of specifically stating that the search results include web pages,"
which are taught by Amitay. Ans. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
In particular, we agree with Appellants' argument that paragraph 72 of
Amitay fails to teach or suggest the limitation "based on the comparison,
identifying web pages of the web-site recorded in the index that are not
located by the host search engine." Reply Br. 9; see also, App. Br. 12-13.
Paragraph 72 of Amitay explains that the content estimation component is
used "for identifying missing content," such as "a list of topics which
interest users but are not covered by the indexed documents." However, as
Appellants' argue, and we agree, this paragraph teaches the content
estimation component identifies topics of interest to users that are not
covered by the index. Reply Br. 9. Accordingly, Appellants argue, and we
agree, "[t]hus, the topics not covered by the indexed documents, as
mentioned in Amitay, are not web pages not located by a search engine, as
recited in claim 1." Id.
Based on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claims 1, 11, and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain
3 Troyanova explains that "SAO KB" is an acronym for Subject-Action-
Object Knowledge Database and that it is prepared from natural language
texts with the help of a semantic processor. See Troyanova ,r 7.
5
Appeal2017-009810
Application 12/296,208
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, and 15, as well as dependent claims
3-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18, under§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 13-15,
17, and 18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6