Ex Parte Martin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2011

10549365 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2011)

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.
10/549,365 09/14/2005 Trevor P Martin 36-1918 5529
23117 7590 06/28/2011
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TREVOR P. MARTIN and BEHNAM AZWINE
___________

Appeal 2009-011158
Application 10/549,365
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011158
Application 10/549,365

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-11, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates a method for generating and updating a
concept dictionary to assist in selecting queries and query terms. (Spec.
Abstract.) A lexical reference source is used to generate queries
semantically related to a query entered by a user, and the answers returned
for each query are analyzed to determine semantic relationships between the
queries. (Spec. Abstract.) The queries and the determined relationships are
recorded in a concept dictionary for subsequent use. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary (with disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method of generating a concept dictionary for use in
querying an information system comprising:
(i) receiving an information search criterion;
(ii) deriving from said received search criterion, using a
lexical reference source, at least one different search criterion having
related meaning to said received search criterion;
(iii) identifying a set of information in said information
system relevant to said received search criterion and a different set of
information in said information system relevant to said at least one
derived search criterion;
(iii) analyzing the identified sets of information and deriving
from similarities and differences therebetween relationships between
said received search criterion and said at least one derived search
criterion in the context of said information system; and
(v) storing, in a concept dictionary, information relating to
said received and said at least one derived search criterion and to
respective said derived relationships therebetween, for use in querying
said information system.
Appeal 2009-011158
Application 10/549,365

3
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Shanahan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2003/0033288).
With respect to independent claim 1, we are convinced by Appellants’
arguments (Br. 11-14) that Shanahan does not teach the limitation
“analyzing the identified sets of information and deriving from similarities
and differences therebetween relationships between said received search
criterion and said at least one derived search criterion in the context of said
information system.”
The Examiner found that Shanahan teaches all the features of
independent claim 1. (Ans. 3-4.) In particular, the Examiner found that
paragraphs [0513], [527], [0366] and the Abstract of Shanahan teaches
“analyzing the identified sets of information and deriving from similarities
and differences therebetween relationships between said received search
criterion and said at least one derived search criterion in the context of said
information system.” (Ans. 3, 7-11.) We do not agree.
Claim 1 recites “received search criterion” and “one different search
criterion.” In other words, claim 1 requires two separate “criterion” for
“analyzing.”
Shanahan describes an “auto-completion system” that uses contextual
information surrounding a fragment, such that a query is formulated to
identify entities in a database to complete the fragment. (Abstract.)
Shanahan also describes an “auto-correction system” that uses contextual
information from identified errors, such that a query is formulated to identify
entities in a database to correct the error. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2009-011158
Application 10/549,365

4
Shanahan describes “Document-Centric Auto Correction” (¶ [0505])
to “identify[] and correct[] errors in the text object” (¶ [0512]; fig. 51).
Initially, a “text object is tokenized to a list of words” (¶ [0512]) and if the
word has not been previously corrected, “a query for the word is formulated”
that “involves generating a query string that includes context information
obtained from content that surrounds the word in the text object.” (¶ [0513].)
“[T]he highest ranked results are evaluated to determine whether any or one
in particular satisfies or best satisfies evaluation criteria.” (¶ [0514].)
Shanahan also describes “User Directed Enrichment” (¶ [0520]) to
“formulate[] directed searches on heterogeneous sources of information such
as the World Wide Web, and proprietary databases while authoring a
document” (¶ [0521]). Ranking of such searches can include “an
alphabetical ordering, a predefined user specified ordering, a quality
ordering . . . , preferred customer ordering, and privacy ordering . . . .”
(¶ [0527].)
Shanahan further describes a “Text Categorizer” (¶ [0360]) that
“assigns a document [3612] one or more classes [3620] in a set of classes
that are defined in an ontology represented in knowledge base 3622”
(¶ [0361]). An “approximate reasoning module 3618 accesses a knowledge
base 3622 that records variables (i.e., document features and associated
frequencies) that are used to define a function that models the mapping from
the document 3612 . . . to a class in an ontology.” (¶ [0366].)
However, the Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation or
rationale as to how the Abstract, the “Document-Centric Auto Correction,”
the “User Directed Enrichment” or the “Text Categorizer” teach “analyzing”
two separate criterion (i.e., the claimed “received search criterion” and “one
Appeal 2009-011158
Application 10/549,365

5
derived search criterion”). Although the “Document-Centric Auto
Correction” and the “User Directed Enrichment” rank the results of a query
(i.e., corresponding to analysis of the “received search criterion”), the
Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation or rationale as to how
the results of a query corresponding to the claimed “one derived search
criterion” are ranked.
Therefore, we cannot agree with the Examiner that Shanahan teaches
“analyzing the identified sets of information and deriving from similarities
and differences therebetween relationships between said received search
criterion and said at least one derived search criterion in the context of said
information system.”
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and we reverse the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. We reverse the rejection of this claim
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The decision to reject claims 1-11 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc