Ex Parte MusuluriDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201812897500 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/897,500 10/04/2010 15889 7590 05/25/2018 Aravind Musuluri 237 Paradise Lake Dr Birmingham, AL 35244 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aravind Musuluri 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. 09-0659.06 2004 EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2018 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): amusuluri@teemingmind.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARA VIND MUSULURI Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-97. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to methods and systems for effectively searching data sources in order to facilitate easy understanding of the nature and scope of information found by the search. Spec. i-fi-12, 12. Claims 1 and 30, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for processing documents, the method comprising: generating, by a processor, preliminary metadata for a document, the preliminary metadata generated from source content, implicit presentation semantics and explicit presentation semantics of the document and comprising key/value pairs indicative of the source content, the implicit presentation semantics and the explicit presentation semantics; identifying, by the processor, one or more blocks in the document, wherein the block is a logical unit of the document, by comparing the key/value pairs in the generated preliminary metadata to key/value pairs in a block identifying criterion set, wherein the comparison of the key/value pairs in the criterion set to the key/value pairs in the generated metadata evaluates to a true indication when the preliminary metadata indicates a block or a false indication when the preliminary metadata does not indicate a block; preparing a block list of the one or more identified blocks; processing the one or more identified blocks in the block list using block operations; and identifying at least one title block item for at least one of the identified blocks in the block list. 30. A method for processing and identifying documents in accordance with their relevance to a search query, the method compnsmg: 2 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 generating, by a processor, preliminary metadata for a document, the preliminary metadata generated from source content, implicit presentation semantics and explicit presentation semantics of the document and comprising key/value pairs indicative of the source content, the implicit presentation semantics and the explicit presentation semantics; identifying, by the processor, one or more blocks in the document, wherein the block is logical unit of the document, by comparing the key/value pairs in the generated preliminary metadata to key/value pairs in block identifying criterion set, wherein the comparison of the key/value pairs in the criterion set to the key/value pairs in the generated metadata evaluates to a true indication when the preliminary metadata indicates a block or a false indication when the preliminary metadata does not indicate a block; preparing a list of the identified blocks; processing the blocks in the block list using block operations identifying a title block for each block in the block list; identifying at least one inline visual element within a block item in the block list using predefined data and metadata rules, if an inline visual element exists; identifying at least one block visual element within at least one of the blocks in the block list using predefined profiles, if a block visual element exists; generating an index of the found visual elements; receiving search query data via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) wherein the search query data comprises at least one selected visual element type; and generating a response to the search query with identification of each document that is determined to be relevant to the search query. 3 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 REJECTIONS 1 Claims 1-17, 22, 23, 25, 27--46, 51, 52, 54, 56-58, 61---64, 66-90, and 93-95 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tran et al. (US 2005/0210008 Al; published Sep. 22, 2005) ("Tran") and Hussam (US 2003/0050927 Al; published Mar. 13, 2003). Claims 18-21, 47-50, 59, 60, 65, 91, and 92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tran, Hussam, and Harrington et al. (US 2007/0150494 Al; published June 28, 2007) ("Harrington"). Claims 24, 26, 53, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tran, Hussam, and Wilms et al. (US 2005/0187991 Al; published Aug. 25, 2005) ("Wilms"). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 96, and 97 Appellant argues Tran does not teach or suggest identifying a block in a document because "[a] document is not a directed vertex-edge structure and a subgraph is not a block." App. Br. 14. Appellant further argues dividing "data into multiple pages for the purpose of displaying the document does not teach identifying a block that is visually distinct for the purpose of processing the document." App. Br. 15. In addition, Appellant 1 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, rejections of claims 1-17, 22, 23, 25, 27--46, 51, 52, 54, 56-58, 61---64, 66-90, and 93-95. Ans. 2. 4 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 argues Hussam does not teach identifying block criterion set or identifying one or more blocks in a document: by comparing the key/value pairs in the generated preliminary metadata to key/value pairs in a block identifying criterion set, wherein the comparison of the key/value pairs in the criterion set to the key value pairs in the generated metadata evaluates to a true indication when the preliminary metadata indicates a block or a false indication when the preliminary metadata does not indicate a block. App. Br. 19. The Examiner relies on the combination of Tran and Hussam to teach or suggest the recited limitations. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner relies on Tran to teach or suggest "identifying ... one or more blocks in the document, wherein the block is a logical unit of the document" and on Hussam to teach or suggest the remainder of the "identifying" limitation. Final Act. 3, 5. Appellant's arguments with respect to Hussam address Hussam in isolation, rather than as combined with Tran, and are therefore not persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Tran generally describes responding to a search for intellectual property by receiving a search query, identifying a plurality of documents responsive to the search query, assigning a score to each document based on at least the citation information, and organizing the documents based on the assigned scores. Tran Abstract, i-f 7. Tran describes an indexing system summarizing diagrams as metadata or meta-tags, such as the drawings or figures in a patent. Tran i-f 202. Tran describes construction of these diagram summaries as "extracting text from the images, the brief description of the drawings contained in the patent application, as well as the text in the description section that pertains to each diagram. Tran i-f 203. From these 5 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 summaries, metadata can be generated and subsequently used in searching the document. Tran i-f 203. Graphs, such as flow-charts or block diagrams can also be distilled to simpler form that can become metadata to aid in searching the documents. Tran i-f 205. For example, a subgraph of a larger graph is identified and the graph is reduced by deleting the entire subgraph. Tran i-f 205. The Examiner finds "Tran shows logical units of a document being extracted: text from the images, the brief description of the drawings, text in the description section that pertains to each diagram." Ans. 5. The claim defines "a block is a logical unit of the document." Appellant's Specification states: As noted earlier[,] a block is a logical unit of a document. One way of thinking about blocks may be as follows: characters make words, words make sentences, sentences make blocks, blocks make bigger blocks and the document itself is the biggest block. Depending on the document type, line breaks, markup, presentation semantics and/ or computed data help in identifying a block. Spec. i-f 92 (emphasis added). Given Appellant's disclosure in the Specification, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the claims that extracting text and description as described in Tran teaches or suggests identifying one or more blocks in the document, wherein the block is a logical unit of the document, as claimed. Appellant further argues Tran teaches away from Appellant's invention because Tran teaches to "identify blocks and the blocks are processed to generate metadata," whereas Appellant's claims relate to "generating metadata and the metadata is used to identify blocks." Reply 6 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 Br. 4. Appellant argues Tran does not teach generating preliminary metadata for a document because "the preliminary metadata generated in accordance with the pending application is completely different with respect to use of metadata disclosed in Tran." App. Br. 14. According to Appellant, "it does not appear that Tran teaches generating metadata that identifies a block that is visually distinct when displayed to a display device." Id. We note the disputed language "identifies a block that is visually distinct when displayed to a display device," (or its equivalent) does not appear in claims 1, 96, and 97. Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Tran to teach or suggest "generating ... preliminary metadata for a document ... ";rather, the Examiner relies on Hussam. Final Act. 4--5. Accordingly, Appellant's arguments against Tran are not commensurate with the scope of the claims or responsive to the Examiner's rejection, and are therefore not persuasive. Moreover, Appellant's teaching away argument is not persuasive. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant further argues Hussam does not teach "generating, by a processor[,] preliminary metadata for a document, the preliminary metadata generated from source comment, implicit presentation semantics and explicit presentation semantics" because "[g]enerating preliminary metadata as in the pending claims refers to generating metadata from the original document and not generated by the user." App. Br. 17. In addition, Appellant argues 7 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 "Hussam merely discloses various types of metadata that is used by known systems in the field ... [and] does not teach generating metadata that is useful in determining different blocks in a document." App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which does not require that the metadata is generated "from the original document and not generated by the user" or "is useful in determining different blocks in a document." App. Br. 17-18. We note Appellant's Specification broadly describes that metadata: may include such things as markup, markup attributes, implicit and explicit presentation semantics, positional data of the text if the document were rendered on a display device, comments, additional computed values about the text itself such as, is the text a block, is the text a block item, average font size and so on, and additional computed values from the previously identified/ computed metadata. Spec. i-f 95 (emphasis added). Hussam generally describes methods and systems for improving location, understanding and assimilation of electronically created document files through the use of metadata. Hussam Abstract, i-fi-12, 19, 22. Hussam describes performing key word searches within a universe of documents to extract a subset of relevant documents, and to provide an abstract indicia or marker (for example, a color highlighter) associated with the keywords in a document through the use of metadata. Spec. i-fi-1 77, 80. Hussam describes two types of metadata: intrinsic metadata that exists at the time of the document's creation by the author and is static, and extrinsic metadata that is independent of the document that may be dynamic, or a mixture of static and dynamic. Hussam i-fi-187, 88. Extrinsic data may include, for example, 8 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 annotations or highlighting, while intrinsic metadata may include, for example, size. Hussam Table 1. Hussam describes RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is a language for representing metadata. Hussam i-f 93. Hussam states: RDF is based on a mathematical model that provides a mechanism for grouping together sets of very simple metadata statements known as 'triples'. Each triple forms a 'property', which is made up of a 'resource' (or node), a 'propertyType' and a 'value'. RDF propertyTypes can be thought of as attributes in traditional attribute-value pairs. Hussam i-f 96. As one example, Hussam describes a propertyType "Author" with the string value "Ali Hussam." Hussam i-f 98; see also Hussam i-f 103. Hussam further describes the creation and use of metadata. E.g. Hussam i-fi-1108, 112. Given this disclosure in Hussam, we are not persuaded Hussam does not teach or suggest "generating ... preliminary metatadata for a document ... " as claimed. Appellant further argues Hussam does not teach "key/value pairs" because the RDF Property Type in Hussam "refers to RDF as a language for representing metadata ... [which] is different from the metadata in the application." App. Br. 18. According to Appellant, "[m]etadata, as the term is used [in the] specification and claims, is information gathered, assumed or computed relating to the document." App. Br. 18. Appellant argues "[ w ]hile RDF can be thought of attribute-value pairs, this is entirely different from the key-value pairs of the metadata as disclosed in the application." App. Br. 18. Appellant do not sufficiently explain why the attribute-value pairs described in Hussam do not teach or suggest the claimed key-value pairs of the metadata. Appellant describes in the Specification that the term 9 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 "metadata" "is to be broadly interpreted to include any information gathered, assumed or computed relating to the document." Spec. i-f 95. Similarly, Hussam broadly describes that metadata is "information about data." Hussam i-f 81. In the Specification, Appellant provides a non-limiting example of a "key/value" pair as "Capital/New Delhi." Spec. i-f 8. We do not see, and Appellant has not persuasively explained, how this is different than the attribute-value pairs described in Hussam, for example "Author/ Ali Hassam." See Hussam i-f 98. Appellant further argues Tran does not teach "preparing a block list of [the] one or more identified blocks" because "[ n Joun phrases in Tran are entirely different from blocks as disclosed in the pending application." App. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that the text and/or description described in Tran teaches or suggests a block as claimed. Appellant further argues Tran does not teach "processing the one or more identified blocks in the block list using block operations" because "the block operations disclosed in Tran paragraph [0068] (difference and summation) are entirely different from those disclosed in the pending application. Block operations with respect to the present application relates to removing empty blocks, deleting overlapping blocks, identifying and removing intermediate blocks and merging blocks." App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner interprets "block operations" as "including any and all possible operations on blocks." Ans. 7. Appellant's Specification does not provide an explicit definition for a "block operation." Rather, Appellant's Specification provides non- 10 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 limiting examples of block operations, including "removing empty block(s), eliminating intermediate block(s), block merging or block splitting." Spec. i-f 141; see also Spec. i-f 111 ("[i]dentify and remove any empty blocks"); i-f 114 ("check if any blocks overlap"); i-f 116 ("identification and removal of intermediate blocks"); i-f 119 ("merging of qualified blocks into larger blocks"). Paragraph 68 of Tran discloses that a user may "compare and contrast the results of multiple searches" and that a variety of operations maybe performed on two sets of search results, including "difference and summation operators, as well as other Boolean operators." We agree with the Examiner's findings that this disclosure teaches or suggests the "processing the one or more identified blocks in the block list" (text and description as described above) "using block operations" (comparing and contrasting and other operations) claim limitations. Appellant further argues Tran does not teach "identifying at least one title block item for at least one of the identified blocks in the block list" because "Tran merely identifies a field as a header, title, plain text etc.; it does not teach whether any of the identified fields could be a title for a block in the document." App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellant does not explicitly define a "title block item" in the Specification, nor does Appellant provide a definition in the Briefs. Although Appellant argues "[ t ]itle block can be headers, titles or plain text fields in a document," (Reply Br. 6, citing Spec. pp. 16-17), we do not see where this is disclosed in the Specification. Rather, in the Specification, Appellant describes by way of a non-limiting example that "[t]he title block item for a block is usually located in the top part of the block and may have higher font size or higher font-weight or a 11 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 different font family or center justified or background color from the rest of the child blocks in the block." Spec. i-f 129. As discussed above, Appellant claims a broad definition of a "block" as a "logical unit of the document," with several examples provided in the Specification, including sentences. See Spec. i-f 92. Tran describes using the presence of title words in a sentence in order to create summaries for search purposes. See Tran i-f 191 (describes using "thematic features, title, cue phrase, and location ... to determine salience of information for summarization in a meta-tag for search purposes" and "[a] combination of cue words, sentence location, and presence of title words in a sentence can also be used [as another summary.]." Appellant has not persuasively explained why such disclosure does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 96, and we, therefore, sustain the rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-29, which were not separately argued. See App. Br. 23-24 Claim 97 In addition to above arguments with respect to claims 1 and 96, Appellant also argues "[ n ]othing in Hussam teaches identification of visual elements by using metadata." App. Br. 19. We disagree. Hussam explicitly describes "the metadata must be presented by means of visual elements" and using visual modes of presentation. Hussam i-fi-1 18, 19. As discussed above, Hussam describes extrinsic metadata, for example, annotations and highlighting. Hussam i-f 88, Table 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 97. 12 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 Claim 30 In addition to the above arguments with respect to claims 1 and 96, Appellant also argues Hussam "does not disclose generating metadata to identify an inline visual element or a block visual element" because it "discloses adding metadata to web pages and resources displayed within web pages by embedding the metadata inline as XML/RDF." App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 6. reads: We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The disputed limitation identifying at least one inline visual element within a block item in the block list using predefined data and metadata rules, if an inline visual element exists; identifying at least one block visual element within at least one of the blocks in the block list using predefined profiles, if a block visual element exists. We note these claim limitations are conditional limitations, only identifying at least one inline visual element or block visual element if one exists. In other words, if the condition is not satisfied (an inline visual element and/ or a block visual element does not exist), then the performance of "identifying" need not be carried out for either limitation in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, Appeal No. 2013-007848 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Hussam teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Appellant describes "[a Jn inline visual element spans a portion of a block item[,] whereas a block visual element spans one or more blocks. Typically, inline visual elements are found within a sentence of a block item." Spec. i-f 134. Hussam extensively describes use 13 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 of visual metadata, such as highlighting and annotations. E.g., Hussam iii! 19, 22, 84, 85, 197, 205, Table 1. Appellant further argues Hussam does not teach "generating an index of the found visual elements" because it teaches: discloses a Semantic Highlighting Information Retrieval Engine that works that visualises search activities by building a colour- coded legend of search terms, and displaying the total number of hits per term, the total number of pages per returned site, colour- coded pie charts, and URLs. After searching the index file located on the server, a pie chart-based visual environment will be created to display the search results" and "does not disclose indexing of visual elements in the document. App. Br. 21-22; see also Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As discussed above, the performance of this limitation is conditional on finding a visual element in the aforementioned "identifying" limitations. If no visual elements are found (either inline or block visual elements), then no index of the found visual elements can be generated. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner's findings. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 195-197 of Hussam to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Ans. 11. Appellant does not explicitly define an "index" in the Briefs, nor does Appellant direct our attention to a definition in the Specification. As Appellant acknowledges, Hussam describes use of an index file for searching, and using visual metadata in the form of pie charts. Hussam if 195; see also Hussam if 249. As discussed above, in addition to pie charts, Hussam extensively describes the use of visual metadata, including, for example, to retrieve and display documents. Hussam if 222, 241. Appellant has not persuasively explained why Hussam does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. 14 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 Appellant further argues Hussam does not teach "receiving search query data via Graphical User Interface (GUI) wherein the search query data comprises at least one selected visual element type" because it "merely mentions a Graphical user interface." App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellant does not explicitly define a "visual element type." Non- limiting examples are provided in paragraph 17 and Figure 40 of the Specification, such as a paragraph, menu, table, graph, list, menu, chart, timeline, etc. As described above, Hussam teaches displaying search results in a pie chart. Hussam i-fi-1205, 249. The user may further select a relevant portion of a pie chart to retrieve the content of the document associated with that portion. Hussam i1211, 254. Appellant has not persuasively explained why "clicking" on the pie chart (selected visual element type) to retrieve additional content does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Appellant further argues Hussam does not teach "generating a response to the search query with identification of each document that is determined to be relevant to the search query" because it "discloses object diagram of the relevant objects involved in erasing highlights." App. Br. 22. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As discussed above, Hussam extensively describes generating a response to a search query. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 30, and we, therefore, sustain those rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 31- 95, which were not separately argued. See App. Br. 23-24 15 Appeal2017-004044 Application 12/897,500 DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-97 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). AFFIRMED 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation