Ex Parte Nomula

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13208338 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/208,338 08/12/2011
105518 7590 08/01/2016
JDM Patent Law PLLC
6801 Kenilworth Ave, Suite 120
Riverdale Park, MD 20737
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jagadeshwar Reddy Nomula
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.
NOMU0003 7854
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
jma@jdmpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAGADESHW AR REDDY NO MULA
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338 1
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2, 4--7, and 13-28. Claims 1, 3, and
8-12 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to "internet search engine
technology," including "resolving search queries that may be inclined
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Jagadeshwar Reddy
Nomula. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
towards social activities." Spec. il L Claim 19 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
19. A method, performed by a computer system, for creating
a search query suggestion using socially derived information of
a user and providing the user with the created search query
suggestion, the user operating a user terminal and inputting a
search query on the user terminal, the computer system
communicable to the user terminal and at least one online social
networking platform, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by the computer system, from the user terminal
one initial search query entered by the user;
creating, by the computer system, at least one suggested
search query using social networking information of the user
received from the at least one online social network platform and
the initial search query; and
sending, by the computer system, to the user terminal the
at least one suggested search query such that the at least one
suggested search query is displayed and listed as one of a
plurality of automatic search query suggestions.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4--7, and 13-282 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofRakshit (US
2012/0131032 Al; May 24, 2012) and Williams et al. (US 2011/0320470
A 1; Dec. 29, 2011) (hereinafter "Williams"), collectively referred to as the
"combination."
2 In the March 4, 2014 Advisory Action, the Examiner entered Appellant's
February 21, 2014 Amendment After Final, which moved from claims 19
and 21 to claims 27 and 28, respectively, the claimed analyzing step.
2
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in ( 1) the October 21, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-7),
the March 4, 2014 Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the August 13,
2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-12). We highlight and address, however,
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Creating at least one suggested search query
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rakshit and Williams teaches or suggests "creating, by the computer system,
at least one suggested search query using social networking information of
the user received from the at least one online social network platform and
the initial search query," as recited in claim 19 and similarly recited in claim
21. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 4--7. Specifically, Appellant argues Rakshit
is directed to decorating query suggestions with corresponding social
networking information (e.g., social comments such as thumbs up or down,
number of comments) only "after a plurality of query suggestions have
already been created" - in other words, Rakshit does not teach "creating a
search query suggestion using socially derived information of the user."
App. Br. 10-11 (citing Rakshit i-fi-f 22, 26-27, Fig. 6); Reply Br. 9.
As to Williams, Appellant argues it does "not tak[ e] into account the
social networking information of the ... user who is conducting the search,"
in contrast to the disputed limitation which requires creating a search query
3
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
suggestion using the initial search query and social networking information
of the user who enters the initial search query. App. Br. 12-13 (citing
Williams i-fi-129, 48-52, Figs. 2--4); Reply Br. 5. To the extent that Williams
teaches using a social network, Appellant argues it instead teaches using the
data of the social network as an additional content data source. See App. Br.
13 (citing Williams i124); see also App. Br. 13-15 (arguing Williams'
"preparation task of collecting generic 'name' information from a social
network for the purpose of expanding the 'names"' is too generic).
The Examiner finds the combination - rather than Rakshit and
Williams individually - teaches the disputed limitation. See Ans. 8-9. As
to Rakshit, the Examiner finds it teaches providing a suggested search query
by using a user's profile, social information, and an initial search query-
the suggested search query also can be an expanded form of the initial search
query. Ans. 8-9 (citing Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 26, Figs. 4---6). The Examiner
also finds Rakshit teaches using the user's social networking information
(e.g., user profile) when recommending and displaying suggested search
queries to the user. See id.; see also Adv. Act. 2 (citing Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 26).
As to Williams, the Examiner finds it teaches creating and presenting
suggested search queries. Ans. 9 (citing Williams Title, i-f 46 ("Applying an
n-gram ... allows for generating a unique suggested search query, which is
not a previously suggested search query, such that the unique suggested
search query is dynamically created in response to receiving the unique
query.")). The Examiner also finds Williams teaches that the suggested
search query can relate to "different data source[ s,] including the social
networking site." Adv. Act. 2 (citing Williams i-fi-124, 50, Fig. 2). The
4
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
Examiner concludes the combined teachings of Rakshit and Williams teach
or suggest the disputed limitation. Ans. 8-9; Adv. Act. 2.
We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Rakshit
and Williams teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
light of the art's combined teachings). We find Rakshit teaches or suggests
to one of ordinary skill in the art providing suggested search queries that are
based on the initial search query entered by a user and the user's social
networking information. See Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 26, Figs. 4---6. For example,
Rakshit teaches:
As a result of the search query 404 being sent to the social
networking server 108, those query suggestions 406 that have
corresponding feedback or recommendations stored in the social
networking server 108 with respect to the query suggestions 406
are displayed with a corresponding social comment icon 410 ....
The social net\~1orking seP1er 108 may use the user's profile as
stored in the social networking server 108 to find and display
only those feedback or recommendations from the user's
"friends" as defined in the user's profile.
Rakshit i122. We further find one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious from Rakshit's teachings to create only those query
suggestions having feedback or recommendations from the user's social
networking friends. See id.; see also Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 26, Figs. 4---6. We
also agree with the Examiner that Williams teaches creating suggested
queries based on the initial query. See, e.g., Williams i1 46.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner and find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found the disputed limitation obvious in
light of the combined teachings of Rakshit and Williams. See KSR Int 'l Co.
5
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
v. T'elej7ex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[T]he [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."); see
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."). In addition, we
are not persuaded that combining Rakshit and Williams in the manner
proffered by the Examiner is ''uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19, as well
as claim 21, which Appellant groups with claim 19. App. Br. 15. Our above
reasoning also applies to Appellant's arguments for claims 20 and 22, and
thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection for these claims. App. Br. 20.
(2) Ranking the plurality ofsearch results
Appellant argues that the combination, and Rakshit in particular, fails
to teach or suggest "ranking, by the computer system the plurality of search
results based on the derived social information of the user," as recited in
claim 23. App. Br. 16. Appellant argues Rakshit instead teaches
"displaying a 'decorated' search query suggestion" by ranking personal
comments and websites. Id. (citing Rakshit i-f 26); Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and Rakshit in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 10.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Rakshit teaches the user's
social networking profile can be used to rank websites found from a
suggested query. See id. (citing Rakshit i-f 26 ("Box 504 displays those
6
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
websites 510 that have been highest ranked against the query suggestion ....
A user's profile as stored in the social networking server 108 may also be
used as a criteria ... for ranking the websites 510 provided to the user."));
see also Rakshit i-fi-122 (teaching the user types in the initial query), 30).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 in light
of our above findings. Our above reasoning also applies to Appellant's
arguments for claims 24--26, and thus, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection for these claims. See App. Br. 19--20.
(3) Analyzing against a social query directory
Appellant argues the combination, and Rakshit in particular, fails to
teach or suggest "analyzing, by the computer system, against a social query
directory to evaluate whether the initial search query contains a social phrase
considered inclined towards social activities, the social query directory
storing a plurality of social phrases," as recited in claim 27 and similarly
recited in claim 28. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant contends
Rakshit instead teaches "'decorating' an already created search query
suggestion." App. Br. 17 (citing Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 32).
The Examiner finds the combination, and Rakshit in particular,
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 11. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Rakshit teaches that a social network server is used in
searching for the user's query suggestions. Id. (citing Rakshit Figs. 1, 6);
see also Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 32. The Examiner also finds Rakshit teaches
displaying for the user the search "results that matched with the social
networking server." Ans. 11 (citing Rakshit Figs. 4--5). The Examiner finds
these teachings would have rendered the disputed limitation obvious,
7
Appeal2015-001026
Application 13/208,338
including because they are the equivalent of "the social query directory
storing a plurality of social phrases." Id.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings. We begin
by noting Appellant's Specification broadly describes social phrases and
inclined towards social activities. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-f 17, 19 (social phrases
can include gifting and jobs, and "phrases" can be "one or more words or
phrases"). We agree with the Examiner and find that Rakshit teaches having
the initial search query search against, inter alia, social networking sites on a
social networking server, which would have taught or suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art a social query directory having social phrases.
Rakshit i-fi-f 19, 22, 32. See also Rakshit i120 ("When a user enters a search
query into a search box in Facebook, query suggestions are proposed to the
user by the Google search engine. These query suggestions encompass
possible places of interest on the Face book social networking site as well as
the internet as a whole .... "); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27, as well
as claim 28, which Appellant grouped with claim 27. See App. Br. 16-18.
Our above reasoning also applies to Appellant's arguments for claims 2, 4--
7, and 13-18, and thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection for these
claims. See App. Br. 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4--7, and 13-28.
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
8