Ex Parte Setlur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

13172425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/172,425 06/29/2011
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
01/04/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vidya Setlur
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.
P5296USOO 7264
EXAMINER
CHEN,TEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDYA SETLUR and AGATHE BATTESTINI
Appeal2014-000963
Application 13/172,425
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-000963
Application 13/172,425
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 11 each recite "wherein the multi-
dimensional query specifies, at least in part, one or more personas, based, at
least in part, on more than one person, associated with the at least one user
device." The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over a combination of Jandhyala (US 2010/0094904 Al; Apr. 15,
2010) and Zeng et al. (US 7,747,618 B2; June 29, 2010). Final Act. 6-7, 10.
In particular, the Examiner construed the claimed "multi-dimensional query"
as "a personal context (or keyword) query specified by at least one network
user device including some abstract data or information" and found a
combination of Jandhyala and Zeng teaches or suggests a "multi-
dimensional query" under this construction. See Ans. 5-7; Final Act. 6-7;
Appellants contend the cited art does not teach or suggest a multi-
dimensional query that specifies "one or more personas, based at least in
part, on more than one person, associated with the at least one user device."
See Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 3-5. Specifically, Appellants argue, among other
things, that Jandhyala's search process and Zeng's three-dimensional matrix,
either alone or combination, do not teach or suggest the recited "multi-
dimensional query." See Br. 4, 6; Reply Br. 4--5.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments, and we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As an
initial matter, the Examiner's construction of "multi-dimensional query"
ignores that the claimed query "specifies at least in part, one or more
personas, based, at least in part, on more than one person." Compare Ans. 5
with Br. 10. Moreover, as argued by Appellants, the cited portions of
Jandhyala and Zeng respectively teach information that affects a PageRank
2
Appeal2014-000963
Application 13/172,425
algorithm based on a single user's data and a three-dimensional matrix used
to augment click through data (see e.g., Jandhyala i-fi-1 52, 61; Zeng 2:46-58),
neither of which suggests the disputed limitation, alone or in combination,
without adequate additional reasoning or evidence, which the Examiner has
not provided. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 and 11. Because claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from either claim 1
or claim 11, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
mp
3