Ex Parte Nelken et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310839930 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) 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. 10/839,930 05/05/2004 Yoram Nelken SVL920050714US2 7968 45729 7590 02/27/2013 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 02/27/2013 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 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-10 and 24-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 Real Party in Interest is IBM Corporation. 2 Claims 11-23 have been cancelled and are not on appeal. 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 5, 2009 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed January 21, 2010 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed May 5, 2009 (“FOA.”); and the original Specification filed May 5, 2005 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention According to Appellants, their invention relates to a web-based customer service and an automated system for processing a web-based query. The system comprises a web server for transmitting a web page having a text field box for a client (user) to submit a natural language query and optional meta-data, and a language analysis server for analyzing the query based on content and context of the query, and classifying the query and optional meta-data into predefined categories, via computed match scores based on concepts extracted from the query, optional meta-data and information contained within an adaptable knowledge base. Based on the computed match scores, the web server then selectively transmits either a resource page or a confirmation page to the client (user) with either automated responses or responses from a live agent. See Appellants’ Spec., ¶[0008], ¶[0011], FIG. 6, and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and is representative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for processing a web-based query, comprising: a web server, executed by a computer, for transmitting a web form to a client for display, the web form having at least one user-interactable element by which a user enters a natural language query and the web form including meta-data that is peripheral data not associated with the natural language query's content; Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 3 a language analysis server, executed by a computer and coupled to the web server, for receiving the natural language query and the meta-data from the client, and for analyzing both the natural language query and the meta-data in order to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category based on information contained within a knowledge base; and the web server 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. Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gusick US 2001/0047270 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Sanfilippo US 2003/0028564 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 Zhao US 6,889,222 B1 May 3, 2005 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-2, 10, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gusick and Zhao. Ans. 3-6. (2) Claims 3-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gusick, Zhao and Sanfilippo. Ans. 6-7. ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the combination of Gusick and Zhao discloses or suggests key limitations of Appellants’ independent claim 1, including: “a web server, executed by a computer, for transmitting a web form to a client for display, the web form having at least one user- Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 4 interactable element by which a user enters a natural language query and the web form including meta-data that is peripheral data not associated with the natural language query's content” (App. Br. 6-11); and “a language analysis server, executed by a computer and coupled to the web server, for receiving the natural language query and the meta-data from the client, and for analyzing both the natural language query and the meta-data in order to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category based on information contained within a knowledge base” (App. Br. 11-14). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief have been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the combination of Gusick and Zhao does not disclose: “a web server, executed by a computer, for transmitting a web form to a client for display, the web form having at least one user-interactable element by which a user enters a natural language query and the web form including meta-data that is Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 5 peripheral data not associated with the natural language query's content”4 and “a language analysis server, executed by a computer and coupled to the web server, for receiving the natural language query and the meta-data from the client, and for analyzing both the natural language query and the meta-data in order to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category based on information contained within a knowledge base.” App. Br. 6-14 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellants acknowledge that a query submission box 330 on a Web page 300, shown in FIG. 3 of Gusick, allows a client (user) to enter a natural language query. Id., 8; see also Gusick, ¶[0047]-¶[0049]. However, Appellants argue that neither “the FAQs 310” nor “an email address from the user” of Gusick constitute “meta-data that is peripheral data not associated with the natural language query's content” as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1. Id., 8-11 (emphasis added). According to Appellants: there is no discussion in Gusick of the email address being “meta-data” that is “[ analyzed with] the natural language query . . . to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category,” as recited in the next limitation of Appellants’ independent claim. Instead, the email address is merely collected by the system of Gusick (Id., 10); 4 We note that Appellants’ Specification only describes meta-data as optional and that meta-data is entered by a user along with a natural language query, via a user-interactable element included in a web form (web page). See Appellants’ Spec., ¶[0011] and original claims 1 and 11 as filed. There appears to be no support for such meta-data included in a web form or Appellants’ claimed “web form including meta-data,” as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, in the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to re-evaluate claim 1 for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 6 there is no disclosure in Gusick of “meta-data that is peripheral data not associated with the natural language query,” where that “metadata” is also “[ analyzed with] the natural language query . . . to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category,” as recited in the limitation of Appellants' independent claim (Id., 12); Yan Zhao merely describe[s] a customer requesting agent assistance in the purchasing of a sports car by means of a self- service web site, wherein the request is transferred from the self-service web site to a routing manager to find an appropriate agent, using a personal attributes and service recommendations. An analysis engine combines the request data with the personal attributes to produce a result in the form of a recommendation metadata object that is associated with content in a content management system for retrieving a result. However, this recommendation metadata is not "presented on the same web page as a user-interactable element for entering a natural language query," nor is it "metadata" that is “[ analyzed with] the natural language query . . . to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category,” as recited in the limitation of Appellants' independent claim . . . . Consequently, the cited portions of Yan Zhao do not teach or suggest the limitations of Appellants’ independent claim directed to "metadata that is peripheral data." Id., 15 (emphasis added). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive to demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). First of all, we note that claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In the context of Appellants’ Specification, Appellants describe “meta-data” as optional and entered by a user along with a natural language query, via a user-interactable element included in a web form (web page). See Appellants’ Spec., ¶[0011]. Appellants’ Specification also states that: Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 7 “meta-data includes peripheral data not typically associated with content of the query (i.e., with the natural language text and/or drop-down box selections). For example, if the customer service interface 115 (FIG. 2) services a financial institution, then the peripheral data may include user name, user account number, or customer service plan afforded the user.” Appellants’ Spec., ¶[0022] (emphasis added). In view of Appellants’ own description of “meta-data”, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that Appellants’ claimed “meta-data” encompasses the customer providing an email address, or alternatively, a telephone number or a post office address, as described in ¶[0049], FIG. 2 of Gusick. Ans. 19-20. Paragraph 0049 of Gusick describes in connection with FIG. 2 that: the customer is provided with an option to submit the question to a customer service dispatcher (representative) associated with the particular in-network organization 160. If the customer selects this option, the customer is prompted to confirm the content of the question posed and to specify how the response should be delivered, preferably by providing an e-mail address, as shown at step 235. (Alternatively, a telephone number or a post-office address may be specified by the customer if system 100 supports those communication methods). After submitting the question to the customer service dispatcher, a message may be displayed indicating that the message has been forwarded to a customer service center or help desk... As a secondary reference, Zhao is simply cited for further disclosing different types of “meta-data” that is peripheral data. Ans. 20. In view of the teachings of Gusick and Zhao, we also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Gusick discloses “meta-data that is peripheral data Appeal 2010-006867 Application 10/839,930 8 not associated with the natural language query,” where that ‘metadata’ is also “[analyzed with] the natural language query ... to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category,” as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1. Ans. 21-22. For the reasons set forth above, we do not find any error in the Examiner’s position and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 as well as claims 2-10 and 24-26, which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-10 and 24-26. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation