Ex Parte Macklem et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2017

13371028 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
13/371,028 02/10/2012 Walter Macklem 748US (102.0122) 5881
10631 7590 11/30/2017
T Kfrlnhal CSalesiforoefl EXAMINER
Nicole Gorney
The Landmark @ One Market Street, Suite 300
BURKE, JEFF A
San Francisco, CA 94105 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ salesforce.com
docketing @LKGlobal. com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER MACKLEM, RON YANG, and
SUSAN M. KIMBERLIN
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,02s1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and DENISE M. POTHIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—14 and 16—24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is a method, system, and media for creating and
applying query independent scores to search results that apply query term
relevance criteria. The combination of the search results and query
independent scores forms a combined score that may alter an original
1 The real party in interest is Salesforce.com.
2 Claim 15 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,028
ranking using only the query scores. Query independent scores can be used
to increase the combined scores of important objects, such as frequently
accessed objects, objects with more connections, and/or objects that are the
subject of discussion. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 7 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing search ranking
services, comprising:
under the control of a database system configured with executable
instructions,
receiving a search query;
preparing, by the database system, a first search result list based at
least in part on the search query, the first search result list having a set of
objects, each object having a base score, the base score having been
computed based at least in part on the relevance of the object to the query;
for each object of at least a subset of the set of the objects:
(i) determining, by the database system, a boost score for the object,
wherein the boost score is determined by summing one or more of a plurality
of weighted boost factors the boost factors including prior user interactions
with the object, page views of the object, a measurement of children beneath
the object, statistical identifiers of the object, social sharing of the object,
importance of the object in one or more computer systems, how recently the
object was accessed, freshness of the object, and popularity of the object,
wherein the weight of each boost factor is based on a predetermined
importance of each boost factor; and
(ii) joining, by the database system, the base score with the boost
score to form a combined score; ranking the set of object results based on
the combined scores; returning a ranked set of object results, and
displaying the ranked set of object results along with their respective
base scores and their respective boost scores;
wherein the boost factors includes at least one prior boost score with a
decay, the decay causing the prior boost score to have a lesser value than an
original value of the prior boost score.
7. A computer-implemented method for providing search ranking
services, comprising:
2
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,028
under the control of a database system configured with
executable instructions,
receiving a search query;
retrieving a first search result list based on terms within the
search query, the first search result list having a set of objects, each
object having a query score, the query score having been computed
based at least in part on the association of the object with the query;
for each object of at least a subset of the set of the objects:
(i) retrieving a query independent score associated with the
object, wherein the query independent score is determined by summing
prior weighted factors, the factors including interactions with the object,
page views of the object, a measurement of children beneath the object,
statistical identifiers of the object, social sharing of the object,
importance of the object in one or more computer systems, how recently
the object was accessed, freshness of the object, and popularity of the
object;
(ii) joining the query score with a query independent score to
form a combined score; and
ranking the set of object results based on the combined scores; and
displaying the ranked set of object results along with their respective
query scores and their respective query independent scores;
wherein the query independent score includes at least one prior
query independent score with a decay, the decay causing the prior query
independent score to have a lesser value than an original value of the
prior query independent score.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Gross et al. US 2006/0064411 A1 Mar. 23, 2006
Sylvain US 2010/0070488 Al Mar. 18,2010
Zhuang US 8,744,978 B2 Jun. 3, 2014
Claims 1—14 and 16—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhuang, Gross, and Sylvain.
3
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,028
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 14, 2016) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Dec. 28, 2016) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Zhuang, Gross, and Sylvain teach or suggest
a query independent score that includes at least one prior query independent
score with a decay?
ANALYSIS
Appellants present a single argument directed to all the independent
claims under appeal.
Appellants argue that Sylvain does not disclose the claimed “query
independent score with a decay.3” See App. Br. 13—16. Appellants contend
that “the claims of the present application explicitly recite that the actual
‘query independent score’ itself decays over time. In contrast, Sylvain
discloses creating a score that is based on a ‘weighting’ that is time based.”
App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred. For example, independent claim 7 initially recites “retrieving a query
independent score” that is “determined by summing prior weighting
factors,” one of those factors being “how recently the object was accessed.”
Independent claims 1,13, and 19 also contain this recency limitation. The
final limitation of claim 7 recites “wherein the query independent score
3 We observe that claim 1 recites a “boost score” rather than a “query
independent score.” Claim 1 is otherwise substantially analogous to
independent claims 7, 13, and 19. We will treat “boost score” in the same
manner that we treat “query independent score.”
4
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,028
includes at least one prior query independent score with a decay.”
Appellants’ Specification makes clear that such a decay is meant to
“emphasize recent interactions.” Spec. 145. The idea of emphasizing recent
interactions is expressed in the claim by the recency language quoted supra.
Thus, we find that a query independent score is composed of a
plurality of factors, (at least) one of those factors being at least one prior
query independent score (or “boost score”), which includes a decay as a
means of accounting for “how recently the object was accessed.”
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Sylvain teaches the “query
independent score” claimed. See Ans. 2—3. Sylvain discloses a plurality of
affinity criteria that affect the ranking of an item in search results based on
factors such as “when the item was accessed.” Sylvain 135. Sylvain
clarifies that “elapsed time” is what is meant by this phrase: “the greater the
elapsed time, the less the weight associated with the communication event.”
Sylvain | 65.
We do not agree with Appellants that Sylvain’s decay only affects a
weighting, not the claimed “query independent score.” See App. Br. 15—16.
We find that Sylvain and the invention under appeal function in the same
manner. Sylvain and the invention both disclose a “query independent
score,” one aspect of which is a factor that decreases as a function of time.
Appellants’ query independent score has a decay only because the temporal
factor that makes up a portion of the score decreases as a function of time.
We find that the Examiner did not err in combining Zhuang, Gross,
and Sylvain to obtain the invention under appeal. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—14 and 16—24.
5
Appeal 2017-007134
Application No. 13/371,028
CONCLUSION
The combination of Zhuang, Gross, and Sylvain teaches a query
independent score that includes at least one prior query independent score
with a decay.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—14 and 16—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6