Ex Parte Ojakaar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

11875666 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
11/875,666 10/19/2007 Erik Ojakaar 50269-0981 4788
73066 7590 12/21/2016
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RF.PKF.R R INGHAM / Yahoo!
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard KIM, TAELOR
Floor 12
San Jose, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK OJAKAAR and CHRISTOPHER TUNG
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—18 and 20-
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “[a] system for assisting users in
obtaining objective information about consumer products” wherein the
“system includes pullquotes within a listing of ordered search results, where
the pullquotes are extracted from independent objective consumer reviews.”
Abstract.
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
storing a plurality of reviews for a plurality of reviewed items,
wherein each review of the plurality of reviews indicates a review-
specific rating for a corresponding reviewed item of the plurality of
reviewed items;
accepting a search query, from a user;
based on the search query, obtaining a collection of search results of
web pages that satisfy the search query;
determining that said search query is directed to a particular reviewed
item of the plurality of reviewed items;
determining an aggregate rating for said particular reviewed item by
aggregating the review-specific ratings that said plurality of reviews
indicate for the particular reviewed item;
for each review of a plurality of reviews for said particular reviewed
item, performing a comparison between the aggregate rating and the
review-specific rating associated with the review,
selecting, from the plurality of reviews for said particular reviewed
item, a representative review based on one or more factors, wherein
the one or more factors include that the representative view has a
review-specific rating for the particular reviewed item that is at least
as mathematically near the aggregate rating as any review-specific
rating of any other review of said plurality of reviews for the
particular reviewed item;
as a response to the search query, generating a search results display
that lists a plurality of search results, wherein the plurality of search
results includes at least both (a) generic search results; and (b) a
search result that contains a pullquote from the representative review
of the particular reviewed item',
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
2
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—10, 12, 14—18, 20—22, 25—27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petras (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2010/0198834 Al; published August 5, 2010), Huang
(US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0215571 Al; published
September 4, 2008), Bernstein (US Patent Application Publication Number
2007/0022020 Al; published January 25, 2007), and Dave (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2007/0078670 Al; published April 5,
2007). Final Rejection 3—20.
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Petras, Huang, Dave, Bernstein, and Chea (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2007/0112760 Al; published May 17,
2007). Final Rejection 20—22.
Claims 23, 24, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Petras and Bernstein. Final Rejection 22—27.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 3, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
January 16, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 18, 2014), and the Final
Rejection (mailed April 24, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. 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 by the Examiner in the
3
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants contend that none of the cited art disclose either
individually or in combination, “for each review of a plurality of reviews for
said particular reviewed item, performing a comparison between the
aggregate rating and the review-specific rating associated with the review”
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 4. Appellants further contend the
Examiner’s findings that Dave discloses or suggests the claim limitation is
erroneous because “these portions of Dave teach ways to generate an
aggregate rating, but never disclose or in any way suggest that the
aggregate rating be compared to a review-specific rating.” Appeal Brief
4—5 (citing Dave 36, 40, 42, and 46).1
Appellants conclude:
Thus, Dave describes that an overall rating score is
compared with score ranges of “low”, “middle”, and “high”.
These ranges are NOT review-specific ratings. The rating of any
individual review is not a range, but rather a specific value that
falls within one of the ranges. Those review-specific values are
never compared to an aggregate rating or the overall rating score
in Dave.
Because the “low”, “middle”, and “high” score ranges in
Dave are not review-specific ratings, Dave does not disclose an
approach of “for each review of a plurality of reviews for said
particular reviewed item, performing a comparison between the
aggregate rating and the review-specific rating associated with
the review,” as claimed.
Appeal Brief 6.
1 Appellants provide arguments for each of Dave’s cited paragraphs but, for
the sake of brevity and clarity, we chose to reference them without repeating
each argument verbatim. See Appeal Brief 4—5.
4
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
The Examiner finds Dave discloses, ‘“The reviews summary includes
information such as the overall rating for the subject.’” Final Rejection 6
(citing Dave 136). The Examiner further finds Dave discloses in paragraph
38, “Upon receiving a request from a user for a reviews summary for a
subject, the reviews engine 106 can select a number of reviews for inclusion
in a reviews sample of a subject, such that the reviews in the sample are
representative of the overall rating for the subject.” Final Rejection 7.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings in regard to Dave’s
paragraph 38. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bernstein
addresses the deficiency of the Petras/Huang/Dave combination because
Bernstein fails to disclose a search result containing both a generic search
result and a pullquote from the representative review of a particular item as
required by claim 1. Appeal Brief 6. Appellants indicate that support for
the claimed generic search results is located in Appellants’ Specification,
paragraphs 20-24 and 35, as well as the drawings - Figure 2. Appeal Brief
3. Paragraph 35 discloses:
As shown in FIG. 2, the site DPreview.com is a
professional review site. Professional review sites are valuable
and may appear in the ordinary search results of the system 100.
In one embodiment, content from professional review sites are
not used within pullquotes.
There is no mention of generic search results in paragraphs 20—24.
Further, the significance of generic search results is not evident in paragraph
35 and therefore it is not evident in Figure 2 described in paragraph 35.
Therefore, we find the Examiner’s findings that Bernstein discloses
generating both a generic search result and a pullquote to be reasonable in
5
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
light of the definitions provided by Appellants’ Specification.2 See Final
Rejection 8—9. Consequently, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
1, as well as the obviousness rejection of claims 2—10, 12, 14—18, 20—22,
25—27, and 29, not separately argued. Appeal Brief 9.
Appellants argue that claims 11 and 13 are allowable over the cited art
because they are dependent upon claim 1 and Chea fails to address the
features of claim 1 that are missing from the Petras/Huang/Dave/Bemstein
combination. Appeal Brief 9. We do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive because we do not find the noted combination deficient.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 11 and
13.
Appellants argue the obviousness rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, and
30 should be reversed because,
Petras merely describes a platform in which users can make or
view comments about various subjects. Petras fails to disclose
or in any way suggest “as a response to the search query,
generating a search results display that lists a plurality of search
results, wherein the plurality of search results includes at least
both (a) generic search results; and (b) a shortcut that
contains a pullquote from a representative review of the
particular reviewed item; wherein the shortcut comprises at
least one of a control for the user to write a review of the
particular reviewed item or a control for providing a rating
of the particular subject matter,” as claimed.
Appeal Brief 10.
2 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
6
Appeal 2015-002929
Application 11/875,666
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the
Examiner relied upon Bernstein, and not Petras, to disclose search results
that include both generic search results and a shortcut that contains a
pullquote.3 Final Rejection 25. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, and 30.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—18 and 20—30 are
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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
3 “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).
7