Ex Parte Nelken et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 8, 201511843972 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2015) 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. 11/843,972 08/23/2007 Yoram Nelken SVL920050714US3 5994 45729 7590 09/08/2015 GATES & COOPER LLP - IBM 6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST SUITE 1050 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YORAM NELKEN, RANDY JESSEE, and STEVE KIRSHNER ____________ Appeal 2013-005858 Application 11/843,972 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-005858 Application 11/843,972 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11–31, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 11. A method for processing a web-based query, comprising: transmitting a web form to a client for display, the web form including at least one user-interactable element for entering a natural language query and the web form including meta-data that is not explicitly provided by a client correspondent and is not associated with the natural language query’s content; receiving the natural language query and the meta-data from the client; analyzing the natural language query and the meta-data to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category using information contained within a knowledge base; and selectively transmitting a resource page to the client for display, the resource page including at least one suggested response and optionally other data corresponding to the at least one predefined category. Prior Art Gusick et al. US 2001/0047270 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Antionio US 2003/0028564 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 Kuno et al. US 2004/0064554 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 Appeal 2013-005858 Application 11/843,972 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 11, 12, 20–23, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gusick and Kuno. Claims 13–19 and 24–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gusick, Kuno, and Sanfilippo. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants contend Gusick does not teach “meta-data that is not explicitly provided by a client and is not associated with the natural language query’s content” as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds Figure 3 of Gusick teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds paragraph 47 teaches categorizing queries using meta-data such as supplier or manufacturer data. Ans. 6–7. Appellants contend paragraph 47 of Gusick teaches submitting a query, but does not teach the claimed meta-data. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 14–15. We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 41 of Gusick teaches the web form shown in Figure 3 includes resource area 320 and question area 330 that receives a natural language query. The resource area 320 includes information about the supplier, such as an in-network organization 160. Paragraph 48 teaches the natural language query is compared against a segment of a knowledge base relevant to the organization 160, to match the query with similar questions and return corresponding answers to a Appeal 2013-005858 Application 11/843,972 4 customer. Appellants have not provided a definition of the claimed “meta- data that is not explicitly provided by a client and is not associated with the natural language query’s content” that excludes supplier meta-data 160 included on the form shown in Figure 3, which is analyzed along with the natural language query by comparing the query against a relevant segment of the knowledge base as identified by the supplier meta-data, classifying the query, and transmitting a response as taught by paragraphs 47 and 48 of Gusick. We sustain the rejection of claim 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 12– 31 which fall with claim 11. 1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether Appellants’ Specification as originally filed provides written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for the negative limitation “meta-data that is not explicitly provided by a client and is not associated with the natural language query’s content” recited in claim 11. “Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed Cir. 2012). An express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, Appellants have not shown where the Specification describes a reason to exclude meta-data provided by a client and associated with the query’s content. The Examiner should consider whether any meta- data on the form is “associated” with the corresponding content. Appeal 2013-005858 Application 11/843,972 5 DECISION The rejection of claims 11, 12, 20–23, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gusick and Kuno is affirmed. The rejection of claims 13–19 and 24–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gusick, Kuno, and Sanfilippo 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED aj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation