Ex Parte Shum et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201813674926 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation