12618170 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Rajaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2016

12618170 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/618,170 11113/2009 Shyam Sundar Rajaram 56436 7590 05/25/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82259591 6071 EXAMINER VU,THONGH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHY AM SUNDAR RAJARAM, GEORGE FORMAN, and EV AN R. KIRSHENBAUM Appeal2014-008739 Application 12/618,170 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, all the pending claims in the present application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to grouping query URLs and analyzing the query URLs to identify similarities between the URLs. See Abstract. Appeal2014-008739 Application 12/618, 170 Claim l is illustrative: 1. A computer implemented method of grouping query URLs, comprising: obtaining a plurality of search query URLs generated at a plurality of Websites, wherein each query URL comprises a query field; analyzing the obtained query URLs to identify similarities among the query fields of the query URLs; and grouping the analyzed query URLs into cases based, at least in part, on the similarities, wherein each case comprises a plurality of instances, and each instance comprises a plurality of data field values corresponding to data fields with a same data field name. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu (US 7,693,865 B2, Apr. 6, 2010) and Rohde (US 7,953,720 Bl, May 31, 2011). ANALYSIS Claims 1-20 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lu teaches or suggests search query URLs, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend that "[ t ]he analysis performed in Lu relies on the search terms used in a query as well as the resulting URLs that were returned as a result of the query ... Lu discloses 'query-URL pairs' ... the query-URL pairs of Lu are not a type of URL used to implement a search, as defined in the present specification" (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend that "the Examiner continues to assert that Lu discloses query URLs [and] [t]he Examiner appears to maintain this assertion based [solely] on the similarity in form between the term 'query URLs' and the term 'query-URL 2 Appeal2014-008739 Application 12/618, 170 pairs,' without considering the actual meanings of these very different terms" (Reply Br. 1-2). We agree with Appellants. As an initial matter, we note that Appellants' Specification indicates that "query URLs represent[] Web searches performed by a plurality of Internet browsers at a plurality of Websites" (Spec. i-f 14; see also i-f 22 (represents searches performed by a Web browser)). Appellants further illustrate the general form of the query URL in paragraph [0027] and argue that "the query URL typically has a Website address or host name and path" (App. Br. 6) and "the entire query URL may be displayed in the browser address bar at the conclusion of the search" (id.). Although we find that Appellants' illustrated query URL form is exemplary at best, we find that consistent with Appellants' Specification and claim language, the claimed "query URL" is defined as the URL used to implement the search at the website. In response, the Examiner solely relies upon Lu for this feature and merely points out the sections of Lu that is being relied upon to teach the claimed query URL (see Ans. 13-14; citing Lu, col. 3, 11. 15-65; col. 4, 11. 5-15, 11. 45-53), without explaining how Lu's "query-URL pairs" equates to the claimed "search query URL." Specially, while the term "query URL" is shown in Lu, the Examiner has not established that Lu's "query-URL pairs" is the URL used to implement the search, as required by claim 1. Instead, we find that Lu merely discloses that "a search engine takes in a query and returns a set ofURLs" (col. 3, 11. 30-31) and that "[b]ased on the query, and the corresponding query result set, a set of query-URL pairs are generated" (col. 3, 11. 58---60). In other words, Lu's "query-URL pairs" is the query and returned URLs combined, i.e., something formed at the conclusion of the 3 Appeal2014-008739 Application 12/618, 170 search, not something used to implement the search. The Examiner fails to address this discrepancy. We are, therefore, constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Lu teaches or suggests the search query URLs, as recited in each of the independent claims 1, 12, and 18. The Examiner has not found that Rohde makes up for this deficiency of Lu. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-20. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 4