Ex Parte Sakai et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 17, 201111007552 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAI SAKAI, MASAMI TADA, AYA MORI, and HIROBUMI TOYOSHIMA ____________ Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention dynamically classifies and sorts search results according to natural language queries. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 2 1. An information retrieval system comprising: an input unit for entering a query in natural language; a natural language processing unit for performing natural language analysis on the query centered from said input unit; a search unit for retrieving information using at least one keyword obtained through the natural language analysis of the query by said natural language processing unit; a search result processing unit for analyzing information related to the keyword obtained through the natural language analysis of the query by said natural language processing unit based on predefined sematic content of the information to process the results of the information retrieval by said search unit based on the analysis result, wherein said search result processing unit analyzes a modifier of the keyword included in the query using an ontology describing semantic content to interpret a restrictive condition of the keyword and sort the search results from said search unit based on the restrictive condition; and an output unit for outputting the search results processed by said search result processing unit. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Omoigui US 2003/0126136 A1 July 3, 2003 Busch US 7,027,974 B1 Apr. 11, 2006 (filed Oct. 27, 2000) Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Omoigui and Busch. Ans. 4-15.1 CONTENTIONS Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Omoigui discloses an information retrieval system with every recited feature except for a search result processing unit that analyzes a keyword modifier included in a query using an ontology describing semantic content to (1) interpret a restrictive condition of the keyword, and (2) sort the search results from the search unit based on the restrictive condition. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner, however, cites Busch as teaching these features in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-6, 15-26. In reaching this conclusion, the Examiner maps the recited keyword modifier to Busch’s “concepts” which are said to include the individual words of sentences that are analyzed by Busch’s ontological parser to create predicate structures. Ans. 22. The Examiner also maps the recited “restrictive condition” to two features in Busch: (1) the created predicate structure, or, alternatively, (2) filtering sentences based on certain conditions. Ans. 17. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2010; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 7, 2010; and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 7, 2010. Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 4 Appellants argue that Busch fails to cure the noted deficiencies of Omoigui as the Examiner contends. First, Appellants argue that Busch’s “concepts” are not keyword modifiers as claimed, let alone are such modifiers analyzed using an ontology describing semantic content as claimed. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 7-9. Appellants further contend that Busch does not use this analysis to interpret a restrictive condition of the keyword as claimed since (1) the predicate structure (which the Examiner maps in part to the “restrictive condition”) includes the keyword, and (2) the filters are not generated based on applying Busch’s ontology, but rather constitute separate processing steps. App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 9-11. Appellants add that Busch does not sort the search the results from the search unit based on the restrictive condition as claimed since Busch’s predicate structures are the results, and therefore not used as a basis to sort search results. App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 11-12. Lastly, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s asserted reason to combine the cited references is unsubstantiated and therefore improper. App. Br. 19-22; Reply Br. 15-16. Regarding representative claim 3, Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest an acquired lower category of a keyword, let alone that this lower category is used to classify the search results as claimed. App. Br. 22-23. Appellants make similar arguments regarding the entered item of claim 5. App. Br. 23-24. The issues before us, then, are as follows: ISSUES 1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Omoigui and Busch collectively would have taught or suggested: Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 5 (1) a search result processing unit that analyzes a keyword modifier included in a query using an ontology describing semantic content to (a) interpret a restrictive condition of the keyword, and (b) sort the search results from the search unit based on the restrictive condition as recited in claim 1? (2) a search result processing unit acquires a lower category of the keyword or entered item to classify the search results from the search unit by the acquired category as recited in claims 3 and 5? 2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. The Examiner’s findings on Page 4 of the Answer regarding Omoigui’s disclosure pertaining to the (1) input unit; (2) natural language processing unit; (3) search unit; (4) search result processing unit; and (5) output unit recited in claim 1 are undisputed. 2. Busch’s ontological parser converts natural-language text into a predicate-argument format that can be used by various applications, including search engines. Busch’s ontological parser comprises two main functional elements: (1) sentence lexer 100 that converts received sentences into sequences of ontological entities that are tagged with part-of-speech information, and (2) parser 200 that converts these sequences into predicate Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 6 structures by analyzing the sentences’ grammatical structure and applying rules. Busch, Abstract; col. 6, l. 49 – col. 7, l. 30; col. 8, l. 45 – col. 9, l. 10; Figs. 1-2. 3. Busch’s sentence lexer 100 comprises lexer 130 that (1) receives sentences, and (2) passes each individual word to ontology 140. If the word exists in the ontology 140, it is returned as an ontological entity; if not, the word is tagged with default assumptions about its ontological status. Busch, col. 7, ll. 15-24; Fig. 1. 4. After lexer 130 checks the last word in a sentence against the contents of ontology 140, the unparsed sentence is passed to a series of lexer filters 150, including adjective and adverb filters. Busch, col. 7, ll. 25-40; Fig. 1. 5. The adjective filter removes lexemes representing adjective concepts from sentences. If the adjective filter finds a noun that (1) follows an adjective, and (2) satisfies the adjective’s restrictions, the adjective filter will apply the adjective’s selectional features to the noun. Busch, col. 7, ll. 45-59. 6. The adverb filter removes lexemes containing adverb concepts from sentences. Since adverbs do not change the meaning of their accompanying verbs, adverbs are removed to simplify parsing. Busch, col. 8, ll. 16-20. 7. Busch’s parser 200 comprises a parser 230 that parses sentences 210 consisting of ontological entities received from lexer 100 into parse trees representing relationships between concepts in a sentence. Parse tree converter 240 converts the parse trees into predicates that are then filtered based on various rules. Busch, col. 8, ll. 45-67; col. 9, ll. 41-58; Fig. 2. Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 7 8. Busch provides an example of parsing the sentence “The octopus has a heart” to produce the predicate “have.” A similar predicate is obtained by parsing a user’s search query “Do octopuses have hearts?” in connection with a search engine. Thus, the parser enables information retrieval using natural language. Busch, col. 16, l. 31 – col. 17, l. 21. 9. Search engines incorporating Busch’s parser can easily substitute words corresponding to different levels of abstraction into the arguments of a predicate, thus broadening the search. Busch, col. 5, ll. 10-14. 10. Busch notes that the term “concept” means an abstract formal representation of meaning which corresponds to multiple generic or specific words or phrases, or the meanings of entire sentences. Concepts may represent the meanings of (1) individual words or phrases, or (2) entire sentences. Busch, col. 6, ll. 21-25. 11. The search result processing unit of the present invention analyzes a modifier (word(s) and phrase(s)) of a keyword included in a query to interpret a restrictive condition and sort the search results based on this condition. An example of this technique is shown in Figure 3 for the query “I want red-framed glasses.” In this example, Appellants’ system interprets the term “red-framed” as a modifier of the keyword “glasses” to interpret a restrictive condition as a basis for sorting the search results. Spec. ¶¶ 0011; Figs. 3, 6A. Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 8 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 14, and 18 At the outset, since the Examiner’s findings on Page 4 of the Answer regarding Omoigui’s disclosure are undisputed (FF 1), we therefore limit our discussion to the disputed aspects of the Examiner’s rejection, namely (1) the Examiner’s reliance on Busch to cure Omoigui’s noted deficiencies, and (2) whether the references are reasonably combinable as the Examiner proposes. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. As Appellants indicate (Reply Br. 7), claim 1 requires a query with (1) a keyword, and (2) a keyword modifier. The Examiner maps the recited keyword modifier to Busch’s “concepts” which are said to include the individual words of sentences that are analyzed by Busch’s ontological parser to create predicate structures. Ans. 22. Although Appellants argue that these “concepts” cannot be keyword modifiers (Reply Br. 7-9), we disagree. Busch indicates that a “concept” represents meanings of (1) individual words or phrases, or (2) entire sentences. FF 10. Notably, these representations can be adjectives and adverbs—terms that modify their respective nouns and verbs. FF 5-6.2 That Busch uses the term “adjective concepts” and “adverb concepts” is telling in this regard. Id. Moreover, these terms would be included in the text input to Busch’s sentence lexer (FF 3)—input text that could include a search query. See FF 8. 2 See also FF 11 (citing an example from Appellants’ disclosure that analyzes the adjective “red-framed” that modifies the keyword “glasses” to interpret a restrictive condition). Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 9 Notably, these adjective and adverb concepts (i.e., keyword modifiers) are used as a basis for filtering which at least suggests that these modifiers are analyzed to interpret corresponding “restrictive conditions” of the associated keywords, namely the conditions dictating filtering associated with the identified adjective and adverb concepts. See FF 4-6. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s alternative position (Ans. 17) that Busch’s filtering functionality at least suggests the recited “restrictive condition” of the keyword. Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 17-18, 25-26) that search results would be sorted based, at least in part, on the restrictive condition. After Busch’s sentence lexer applies the adjective and adverb filters noted above, Busch’s parser parses resulting sentences to ultimately determine an associated predicate structure. FF 2-7. These predicates and associated arguments can then be used by search engines to not only facilitate natural-language searching, but also broaden searches by substituting different levels of abstraction into the predicate’s arguments. FF 2, 8-9. Combining this functionality with Omoigui’s natural-language information retrieval system would predictably yield an information retrieval system that would sort the search results based, at least in part, on the restrictive condition as claimed. That is, search results obtained in Omoigui’s system via a particular predicate-based query as taught by Busch would be based, at least in part, on the restrictive condition determined in connection with the query. Since these search results would be sorted in some fashion for display (e.g., by how they appear on a display, relevance, etc.), it follows that this sorting would likewise be based, at least in part, on Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 10 the restrictive condition determined in connection with the associated query that generated the results. In short, we find no error in the Examiner’s position based on the collective teachings of Omoigui and Busch. Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combining the references in concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious. In this regard, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, namely that providing Busch’s parsing technique in Omoigui’s system would yield a faster method of finding search results by using an ontology parser. Ans. 26. We see no error in this reasoning, for Busch’s parser strips natural-language queries of certain words to obtain a more compact predicate structure that is used for searching. FF 2-9. Skilled artisans would therefore recognize that resulting search queries based on these condensed predicates would be processed more efficiently (and therefore faster) since, among other things, there are fewer search terms than the original query. Although Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to substantiate this rationale by, among other things, comparing Omoigui’s execution before and after the modification (Reply Br. 16), we find no such analysis is required where, as here, skilled artisans would have recognized enhancements obtained by combining the cited references from the teachings and suggestions of the references themselves in light of the knowledge of ordinarily skilled artisans. Nevertheless, we find that enhancing Omoigui’s search system with Busch’s parsing technique to be nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 11 We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 6, 7, 10, 14, and 18 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 20 We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5 which recite, in pertinent part, a search result processing unit that acquires a lower category of the keyword or entered item to classify the search results from the search unit by the acquired category. The Examiner has not explained—nor can we find—how the cited passages in Omoigui teach or suggest that the search result processing unit acquires a lower category of a keyword or an entered item, let alone that this lower category is used to classify the search results as claimed. The term “lower” is a key qualifier in this regard, for it implies that it is relative to another higher category of the keyword such as that indicated in steps S904-S906 of Figure 9 of the present disclosure. But apart from merely quoting the claim language and citing corresponding passages from Omoigui (Ans. 6-8), the Examiner simply does not explain how these passages meet the recited limitations, nor will we speculate in this regard here in the first instance on appeal. That the Examiner failed to respond to Appellants’ arguments in connection with claims 3 and 5 as Appellants indicate (Reply Br. 16-17) only further undermines the basis for the Examiner’s position. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 and claims 5, 9, 12, 16, and 20 which recite commensurate limitations. Appeal 2011-003522 Application 11/007,552 12 CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 14, and 18, but erred in rejecting claims 3, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 20. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 is affirmed-in-part. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation