Ex Parte Mueller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613333155 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/333,155 12/21/2011 Thomas Mueller 2058.630US1 2127 50400 7590 12/29/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS MUELLER, FLORIAN KRESSER, DANIEL BUCHMANN, HANS-MARTIN LUDWIG, THOMAS FINKE, and KARL FUERST Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,1551 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—20, which are all the claims pending on appeal. Claim 4 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2015 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 28, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed August 28, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed Oct. 22, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed December 21, 2011 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Text analysis tools are well-known tools to analyze data (such as word processing files, electronic documents, and the like) based on certain “key terms” or “phrases.” Spec. 12. Likewise, search tools are also well-known tools to access data or documents based on a particular “search query.” Id. 13. Appellants propose “various techniques for integrating text analysis and search functions via the use of tagging data (or, alternatively, data ‘tags’) associated with one or more documents or data objects of interest.” Spec. ]fl9 (emphasis added). According to Appellants, “a plurality of documents, as well as search information comprising search terms for a search category, are accessed.” Id. 120. “Each of the determined documents are then tagged with the search category, possibly including one or more search terms that apply to the particular document being tagged' and “documents that are tagged with the search category may then be returned in response to the search request. As a result, text analysis results may be employed to enhance the results of a search request or query.” Id. (emphasis added). Claims 1,16, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. A method, comprising: accessing search information of a search request, the search request indicating a search category and associated search terms, the search terms including examples and subcategories of the search category; identifying those of a plurality of documents that include at least one of the search terms; 2 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 analyzing the identified documents to determine those of the identified documents that are logically associated with the search category, the analyzing of the identified documents comprising [ 1 ] performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request and [2] performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the identified documents to compare a context of the search information with a context of content in the one or more of the identified documents', and tagging each of the determined documents with the search category. App. Br. 17 (Claims App.) (brackets added). Examiner’s Rejection and References Claims 1—3 and 5—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eggebraaten et al. (US 8,041,702 B2; issued Oct. 18, 2011; “Eggebraaten”) and Meik et al. (US 2005/0108200 Al; published May 19,2005). Final Act. 3. ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the combination of Eggebraaten and Meik teaches or suggests several limitations recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 16 and 18. App. Br. 9—13; Reply Br. 2—9. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1,16, and 18, the Examiner finds Eggebraaten teaches a method for searching for documents and analyzing 3 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 those documents based on a user’s request indicating “search terms” (Eggebraaten 1:39—56, 6:2—7, 6:13—30) including the disputed limitations: [1] performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request [and] [2] performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the identified documents to compare a context of the search information with a context of content in the one or more of the identified documents (Ans. 4—5) in the form of a search engine 150, shown in Eggebraaten’s Figure 1, responding to a user requesting a search based on a keyword, returning “a list within an electronic document 164, wherein each entry describes the electronic document 136 associated with that keyword” and “all terms within the category described by the term.” Ans. 4 (citing Eggebraaten 6:14—17, 6:22-44). For example, “an ontology search on, ‘Anxiety disorder,’ returns a list describing all documents 136 associated with, ‘Anxiety disorder,’ ‘Acute stress disorder,’ or ‘Anxiety disorder of childhood or adolescence.’” Eggebraaten 6:31—35, 6:40-44. The Examiner acknowledges Eggebraaten implicitly teaches “tagging” in the context of “documents within the search category,” but nevertheless relies on Meik for an explicit use of tagging each of the determined documents with the search category to support the conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 5—6 (citing Eggebraaten 9:13—18, Fig. 5 where “document 7 [] is tagged by the term MENTAL”; Meik || 83, 101—102). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Meik. Nor do Appellants challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining Eggebraaten and Meik. Instead, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Eggebraaten. In particular, Appellants contend “the use 4 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 of [Eggebraaten’s] ‘ontology index’ is not equivalent to [Appellants’ claimed] ‘performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search requestApp. Br. 11. According to Appellants, none of Eggebraaten’s registration, Eggebraaten’s creation of “an ontology index,” or Meik’s “identifying synonyms for search terms” is equivalent to Appellants’ claimed “performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request and performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the identified documents to compare a context of the search information with a context of content in the one or more of the identified documents” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. In the Reply, Appellants acknowledge Eggebraaten’s “search engine” returns a list within an electronic document with multiple entries describing documents associated with keywords in response to a user’s search request, but argue such disclosure “is not equivalent to [Appellants’ claimed] ‘performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request and performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the identified documents . . .’’’as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 6. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—6. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note there is no requirement that the prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Every patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement 5 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 that [which is] disclosed.” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Based on the teachings of Eggebraaten, we find a skilled artisan would understand Eggebraaten’s search engine is used to not only search for documents in a network in response to a user’s “search” request, but also analyze those documents to determine if those documents are logically associated with the search category and, as part of that analysis, Eggebraaten’s search engine would have to analyze the text of the search request (i.e., performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request) and the text of those documents (i.e., performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the those documents) in the manner recited in Appellants’ claims 1,16, and 18. For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1,16, and 18 and their respective dependent claims 2— 3, 5—15, 17, and 19—20 which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 15. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 6 and 10 Dependent claims 6 and 10 further recite: the tagging of each of the determined documents comprising linking each of the determined documents with a tag type and a tag value associated with the tag type, the tag type comprising the search category, and the tag value comprising at least one of the search terms existing in the determined document being tagged. 6 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 Appellants acknowledge Eggebraaten teaches that the list returned from the search engine “may contain a title for each document in the list, and a network address.” App. Br. 14 (citing Eggebraaten 11:19—22). However, Appellants argue Eggebraaten does not teach or suggest “linking each of the determined documents with a tag type and a tag value associated with the tag type” as recited in claims 6 and 10. App. Br. 14—15. We remain unpersuaded. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Eggebraaten teaches tagging each of the determined document with the search category in the context of Figure 5 where the term “MENTAL” is tagged in document #7. Ans. 6 (citing Eggebraaten 9:13—18). Likewise, Meik also teaches tagging with linking in the context of a URL for each document entered along with a number identifying the document type. Ans. 7 (citing Meik || 228, 280). For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 10. CONCLUSION3 On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—20 under 35U.S.C. § 103(a). 3 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the limitation “performing text analysis on at least a portion of the search request and performing text analysis on at least a portion of the text in one or more of the identified documents to compare a context of the search information with a context of content in the one or 7 Appeal 2016-001121 Application 13/333,155 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—20. 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). AFFIRMED more of the identified documents,” as recited in claims 1,16, and 18 are supported by the written description of the original Specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. For example, the original Specification may only describe the text analysis module 304 to analyze text of documents to determine whether these documents are logically associated with a given search category or term. See Spec. 38, 45. 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation