Ex Parte Shum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13674926 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/674,926 11112/2012
69316 7590 03/26/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heung Yeung Shum
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.
336923.01 4584
EXAMINER
MOSER, BRUCE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEUNG YEUNG SHUM, DERRICK LESLIE
CONNELL, XAVIER LEGROS, KEVIN L. HAAS, and
KANGLI
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing LLC. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Bohrer et al. (US 2014/0101134 Al, published Apr. 10, 2014). Final
Act. 2-7.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Bohrer and Cumby et al. (US 2014/0095466 Al,
published Apr. 3, 2014). Final Act. 7-8.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "search results received from a search
engine, in response to a search query entered by the user, [comprising]
identifications of discrete sets of content, typically in the form of documents,
identifications of entities and associated information and tasks, and
identifications of individuals from whom additional information can be
obtained." Spec. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. One or more computer-readable storage media
comprising computer-executable instructions for providing
multidimensional search results in response to a search query,
the computer-executable instructions directed to steps
compnsmg:
identifying responsive documents relevant to the search
query;
identifying one or more responsive entities, relevant to
the search query, based upon at least some of the responsive
documents and entity identifiers with which the at least some of
the responsive documents are marked;
identifying responsive people relevant to the
search query; and
generating, in response to the search query, a first
dimension of search results comprising identification of at least
some of the responsive documents, a second dimension of
2
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
search results comprising identification of at least some of the
responsive entities, and a third dimension of search results
comprising identification of at least some of the responsive
people.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-19 BY BOHRER
Claim 1
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 Declaration, including the
attached evidence (a blog entry in the official BING blog documenting
functionality of the BING search engine prior to October 9, 2012, hereinafter
"Bing"), establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to the filing
date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 10-12; see also Deel. 2--4 (citing Bing 2-5).
In response, the Examiner finds the declaration does not establish
conception and reduction to practice for claims 2-5, 7, and 9-18. See
Ans. 3-5. The Examiner finds "several claim elements are not taught by the
blog post and thus the declaration is insufficient to show the inventors had
possession of the claimed invention as of a date prior to 10/9/12." Ans. 6.
The Examiner takes the position that the declaration was filed by Appellants
for the purpose of swearing behind Bohrer for all claims, and for this reason,
cannot be used to swear behind Bohrer for only some of the claims. See
Ans. 7.
We disagree with the Examiner. The declaration should be evaluated
for each claim individually. The Examiner does not point out any
deficiencies in the declaration with respect to claim 1. See Ans. 3-5.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites "referencing a people/query mapping database
comprising mappings between individual people, represented in the
people/ query mapping database by people entities, and one or more queries
associated with those individual people."
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 Declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 13-17; see also Deel. 4--5 (citing
Bing 2, 4).
In response, the Examiner explains "Appellant never cites where in
the instant application declaration the inventors present evidence of the
claimed feature in claim 2 other than the allegation that said feature is shown
in the blog." Ans. 8.
We disagree with the Examiner. Bing, on pages 2 and 4, depicts
search results including a social search result described as "bringing friends,
experts, and enthusiasts into your search experience through a dedicated
social 'sidebar."' Bing 5. Based on the record before us, Appellants'
declaration, supported by Bing, reasonably establishes the inventors had
possession of "referencing a people/query mapping database comprising
mappings between individual people, represented in the people/query
mapping database by people entities, and one or more queries associated
with those individual people" as recited in claim 2.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
4
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites "updating the people/query mapping database in
accordance with user action directed to one of the dimensions of search
results."
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 17-18; see also Deel. 5 (citing Bing
1, 4).
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 8.
We agree with the Examiner. We recognize that Bing describes a
social search result. Bing 2, 4. That said, the recitations in claim 3 concern
user action toward one of the dimensions of search results and are not
limited to any particular dimension. We do not see on the record that the
inventors had possession of "updating the people/query mapping database in
accordance with user action directed to one of the dimensions of search
results" as recited in claim 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "determining an association between content of a
document and an entity; and associating the entity to the document by
marking the document with a unique identifier of the entity."
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 Declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
5
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 18-20; see also Deel. 6 (citing Bing
1, 4).
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner. We recognize that Bing describes
"Snapshot brings relevant information and services related to your search to
you right on the main results page including maps, restaurant reservations."
Bing 4. That said, the recitations in claim 4 concern a specific approach to
associating a document and an entity-marking a document with a unique
identifier of an entity. We do not see on the record that the inventors had
possession of "determining an association between content of a document
and an entity; and associating the entity to the document by marking the
document with a unique identifier of the entity" as recited in claim 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites "receiving an indication of user action directed to one
dimension of search results; updating the search query in accordance with
the user action; and updating, in accordance with the updated search query,
at least one other dimension of search results."
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 Declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 20-22; see also Deel. 6-7.
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 9.
6
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
We agree with the Examiner. We recognize that Bing describes links
on the left-hand side of the screenshots and "Snapshot brings relevant
information and services related to your search to you right on the main
results page including maps, restaurant reservations." Bing 4. That said, the
recitations in claim 5 concern updating the search query and search results in
accordance with user action, and this is more specific than the display of
links and snapshots in Bing. We do not see on the record that the inventors
had possession of "receiving an indication of user action directed to one
dimension of search results; updating the search query in accordance with
the user action; and updating, in accordance with the updated search query,
at least one other dimension of search results" as recited in claim 5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5. Accordingly, because we do not see
on the record that the inventors had possession of the subject matter of claim
5, we also do not see on the record that the inventors had possession of the
subject matter of claim 6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7-16
Claim 7 recites, among other limitations, "the entity/ document
association builder computing device to mark a document with a unique
identifier of an entity if an association between content of the document and
the entity is determined."
7
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 Declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 22-23; see also Deel. 7 (citing Bing
1, 4).
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 9-10.
We agree with the Examiner. We recognize that Bing describes
"Snapshot brings relevant information and services related to your search to
you right on the main results page including maps, restaurant reservations."
Bing 4. That said, the recitations in claim 7 concern a specific approach to
associating a document and an entity-marking a document with a unique
identifier of an entity. We do not see on the record that the inventors had
possession of "the entity/document association builder computing device to
mark a document with a unique identifier of an entity if an association
between content of the document and the entity is determined." as recited in
claim 7.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8-16 depend from claim 7. Accordingly, because we do not
see on the record that the inventors had possession of the subject matter of
claim 7, we also do not see on the record that the inventors had possession of
the subject matter of claims 8-16.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-16.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites, among other limitations, "identifying the responsive
people relevant to the search query based on a people/query mapping, the
8
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
people/query mapping comprising mappings between individual people,
represented in the people/query mapping database by people entities, and
one or more queries to which such people are relevant."
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 37-39; see also Deel. 13 (citing Bing
2, 4).
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 13.
We disagree with the Examiner. Bing, on pages 2 and 4, depicts
search results including a social search result described as "bringing friends,
experts, and enthusiasts into your search experience through a dedicated
social 'sidebar."' Bing 5. Based on the record before us, Appellants'
declaration, supported by Bing, reasonably establishes the inventors had
possession of "identifying the responsive people relevant to the search query
based on a people/query mapping, the people/query mapping comprising
mappings between individual people, represented in the people/ query
mapping database by people entities, and one or more queries to which such
people are relevant" as recited in claim 17.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites "receiving an indication of whether a user action was
directed to at least one of the responsive people and updating the
people/query mapping in accordance with the received indication."
9
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
Appellants argue the submitted Rule 1.131 declaration, including the
attached evidence, establishes conception and reduction to practice prior to
the filing date of Bohrer. See App. Br. 39-41; see also Deel. 14 (citing Bing
1, 4).
In response, the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons given for
claim 2. Ans. 13-14.
We agree with the Examiner. We recognize that Bing describes a
social search result. Bing 2, 4. That said, the recitations in claim 18 concern
user action toward at least one of the responsive people, and updating the
mapping. We do not see on the record that the inventors had possession of
"receiving an indication of whether a user action was directed to at least one
of the responsive people and updating the people/ query mapping in
accordance with the received indication" as recited in claim 18.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the Examiner does not point out any deficiencies
in the declaration with respect to claim 19. See Ans. 3-5.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 20 OVER BOHRER AND CUMBY
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner does not point out any deficiencies
in the declaration with respect to claim 20. See Ans. 3-5.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
10
Appeal2017-007775
Application 13/674,926
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 17, 19, and 20 is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3-16 and 18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11