Ex Parte Singhal et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 30, 201010377117 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/377,117 03/03/2003 Amit Singhal 0026-0024 9085 44989 7590 08/31/2010 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP 11350 Random Hills Road SUITE 600 FAIRFAX, VA 22030 EXAMINER PHAM, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte AMIT SINGHAL, MEHRAN SAHAMI, JOHN LAMPING, MARCIN KASZKIEL, and MONIKA H. HENZINGER ____________________ Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 10, 12-24, and 26-33. Claims 11 and 25 have been canceled (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We REVERSE. Introduction Appellants’ invention is directed to search engines that locate information on a network, such as the World Wide Web (Spec. 1). Alternate terms are incorporated into a search query for a search engine (Abstract). The alternate terms are semantically similar to the search query terms and consider account information derived from the search query (id.). STATEMENT OF CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method of modifying a search query, the method comprising: determining one or more alternative terms for one or more terms in the search query; generating search results by searching an indexed corpus of documents, the searching being based on the search query, each search result identifying one or more documents in the indexed corpus of documents; defining a query context as a plurality of the documents identified by the search results; comparing the query context to the alternative terms to generate one or more valid ones of the alternative terms: and Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 3 incorporating one or more of the valid ones of the alternative terms into the search query to obtain a modified search query. Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bowman US 6,169,986 B1 Jan. 2, 2001 Asmussen US 2002/0042923 A1 Apr. 11, 2002 Li US 2002/0059161 A1 May 16, 2002 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22-24, 26-28, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowman and Asmussen (Ans. 3). Claims 6, 9, 14-18, 21, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowman, Asmussen, and Li (Ans. 19). GROUPING OF CLAIMS (1) Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 as a group on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 7-13). Claim 32 is argued on the same basis as claim 1 (id. at 27-31). We also group claims 27, 28, and 30 with this group as analogous arguments are presented. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and treat claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 27, 28, 30, and 32 as standing or falling with claim 1. Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 4 (2) Appellants argue claim 3 independently (id. 13-15). Claim 26 is argued on the same basis as claim 3 (id. at 20-21). Therefore, we select claim 3 as the representative claim and treat claim 26 as falling with representative claim 3. (3) Appellants argue claim 19, 20, and 22-24 as a group on the basis of claim 19 (id. at 15-20). Claim 33 is argued on the same basis as claim 19 (id. at 31-35). We select independent claim 19 as the representative claim and treat claims 20, 22-24, and 33 as standing or falling with representative claim 19. (4) Appellants argue claim 14-18 as a group based on claim 14 (id. at 36-38). Therefore, we select claim 14 as the representative claim and treat claims 15-18 as standing or falling with representative claim 14. (5) Appellants separately argue claims 6 and 9; claim 21; and claim 29 and 31 (id. at 36-38). We therefore address these claims separately We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 27, 28, 30, and 32 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Bowman and Asmussen because neither teaches or suggests “comparing the query context to alternative terms to generate one or more valid ones of the alternative terms,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 27 and 32 (App. Br. 7-13 and 21-31). Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner misinterprets Asmussen since the search in Asmussen does not return a plurality of documents but instead returns the historical analysis report that Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 5 is a summary of statistical data of the user’s previous account activities (id. at 7-11 and 27-31; Reply Br. 4). Thus, Appellants argue historical data does not correspond to the query context (App. Br. 10). Moreover, Appellants contend that although Asmussen’s historical data may include returned search results, “these search results are not based on a search query for which one or more of the indexed suggestion keywords were determined” (id.) (emphasis omitted). Appellants additionally contend “the user profile and history data of A[smussen] will be not compared to the indexed suggestion keywords to generate a list of suggested terms” (id.) (emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellants argue Asmussen does not disclose or suggest comparing the historical data that is relevant to the user to the indexed suggestion keywords to generate valid indexed suggestion keywords and thus, the recited element (id. at 8-11). The Examiner finds plurality means anything greater than another and documents are collections of characters (Ans. 25). Therefore, according to the Examiner, the history analysis report of Asmussen teaches “a plurality of documents returned by a search because it is a report of information containing data regarding a search” (id. at 26). Further, the Examiner finds the history data is compared to a suggestion database of indexed suggestion keyword to provide suggested search parameters (id. at 26-27). Issue 1: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding Asmussen teaches “comparing the query context to the alternative terms to generate one or more valid ones of the alternative terms” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 27 and 32? Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 6 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Asmussen (1) Asmussen teaches a method and system directed toward a search suggestion engine and corresponding method that provides suggestions of available content thus allowing a user to maximize use of a video and digital multimedia aggregator. A search suggestion engine constructs a database of metadata elements or word items using a crawler that periodically or continually crawls a content metadata database, extracting word items from the content metadata database. The word items are then processed, indexed, and possibly provided with a vector value. A subsequent search request may include search criteria provided with vector values. (Abstract.) “A processor within the search suggestion engine compares the vector values to determine if an indexed word item should be considered for retrieving the indexed word item’s associated content.” (Id.) A generated list of suggested content may be ranked and filtered before being provided to the user. (Id.) (2) The user history analysis report is a summary of statistical analysis of the user’s previous account activities that may include previous search requests, returned search results, and content download requests. The history analysis report is compiled by the user database server 511 within the database administrator 502 and comprises information such as a percentage breakdown of content types and genres for which a user has requested searches, statistical breakdown of content that the user has downloaded, and summary data about content that was selected for download from earlier suggested content results. (Pg. 9, ¶ [0078]). Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 7 (3) The suggestion database processor 307 takes the vector- formatted search request criteria and performs a comparison against the index matrix, routine 123 to determine whether a particular index matrix record falls within a suggestion vector range of the search criteria. (Pg. 9, ¶ [0079]). (4) Once the comparison has been completed for the entire index matrix, the cached records that fell within the suggestion vector range are then filtered according to the user’s profile. The filtered results are then forwarded and ranked according to the user’s historical analysis report, by relevance, and by similarities to previously searched and downloaded content. (Pg. 9, ¶ [0080]). Dictionary (5) A document is defined as “[a]ny self-contained piece of work created with an application program and, if saved on disk, given a unique filename by which it can be retrieved. Documents are generally thought of as word-processed materials only. To a computer, however, data is nothing more than a collection of characters, so a spreadsheet or a graphic is as much a document as is a letter or report.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary 171 (5th ed. 2002)). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the history analysis report discloses a plurality of documents that are returned by a search as the history analysis report is a report of information containing data regarding a search (Ans. 26). Thus, the Examiner finds the history analysis report is the recited query context (id. at 25-26). We find, however, the history analysis report is not a plurality Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 8 of documents. The history analysis report is a summary of statistical analysis of the user’s previous account activities (FF2). The user’s activities include previous search reports, returned search results, and content download requests; however, these activities are then statistically analyzed and summarized (FF 2-3). Thus, we conclude one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the history analysis report to be a plurality of documents identified by the search results. Instead, we find the history analysis report is a document that provides a statistical analysis summary of a user’s activities – not documents identified by the search results. The Examiner seems to find that “history data” as discussed in Asmussen and the history analysis report are the same, finding the history data is compared to the suggestion database that houses the indexed suggestion keywords (Ans. 26). However, we find no explanation or support presented by the Examiner, or identification in the Asmussen reference, to support this equivalence. Nor do we find that the history analysis report is compared to the alternative terms to generate one or more valid alternative terms. The history analysis report is compared to the result to rank the results, not to generate valid alternative terms (FF 4). CONCLUSION Thus, after considering the totality of the circumstances before us, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Asmussen teaches “comparing the query context to the alternative terms to generate one or more valid ones of the alternative terms” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 27 and 32. Accordingly, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 27, 28, 30, and 32 grouped with claim 1, along with Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 9 claims 1, 27, and 32 are found to be non-obvious over Bowman and Asmussen. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 19, 20, 22-24 and 26 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Bowman and Asmussen because Asmussen does not teach or suggest “filtering the additional terms using the query context to remove those of the additional terms that are not semantically similar to the one or more search terms” as recited in claim 19 and commensurately recited in claim 33 (App. Br. 15- 21). The Examiner finds Asmussen teaches that the user history analysis report includes search request, information, and summary data about content selected for download from earlier suggested content results (Ans. 39-40). The Examiner further finds the suggestion database a vector formatted search request criteria and compares it to the index matrix (id. at 40). The Examiner then contends that since the suggestion vector range is automatically adjustable based on a “trend analysis of the user’s previous download of suggested content” (id.) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner thus finds that the comparison of word items in the suggestion database using the history analysis report removes the word items in the suggestion database that do not favorably compare to the vector quantity to one or more search parameters that are not valid (id. at 41). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Asmussen teaches “filtering the additional terms using the query context to remove those of the additional terms that are not semantically similar to the one or more search terms” as recited in claim 19. (Id.) Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 10 Issue 2: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding Asmussen discloses “filtering the additional terms using the query context to remove those of the additional terms that are not semantically similar to the one or more search terms” as recited in claim 19 and commensurately recited in claim 33? FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Asmussen (6) A listing of all content metadata in the aggregator local database 501 [is passed] to the suggestion keyword indexer 310. The suggestion keyword indexer 310 indexes each metadata element. . . . [and] may assign each metadata element with a vector quantity that describes the metadata element as a suggestion keyword for a particular content entity. . . .The indexer 310 then populates the suggestion database 308 with these indexed suggestion keywords, which are subsequently used by the suggestion database processor 307 along with historical data relevant to the user, to supply a list of suggested search terms.” (Pg. 6-7, ¶ [0066]. ANALYSIS As discussed above with respect to Issue 1, the Examiner has not provided any persuasive argument or evidence, or identified the portion of Asmussen that “historical data” is equivalent to “history analysis report.” Therefore that historical data is used by the suggestion database processor is not persuasive (FF 6). Moreover, we find Asmussen discloses that the filtering takes place and the filtered results are then forwarded to rank the results according to the history analysis report, relevance, and similarities to Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 11 previously searched and downloaded content (FF 4). We find ranking is not filtering. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after considering the totality of the arguments and evidence presented, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s finding that Asmussen describes “filtering the additional terms using the query context to remove those of the additional terms that are not semantically similar to the one or more search terms” as recited in claim 19 and commensurately recited in claim 33. Since claims 20 and 22-24 are grouped with claim 19, we conclude claims 19, 20, 22-24, and 33 are not obvious over Bowman and Asmussen. ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 14-18 Appellants separately argue claims 14-18 (App. Br. 36-38). Since claims 14-18 depend from claim 1 and the additional reference Li has not been argued to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 as set forth in Issue 1 above, we conclude claims 14-18 are not obvious over Bowman, Asmussen, and Li. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 6, 9, 21, 29, and 31 Appellants argue claims 6, 9, 21, 29, and 31 are patentable based on their respective independent claims, but present no further arguments (App. Br. 36, 38). As set forth above in Issues 2 and 3, their respective independent claims 1, 19, and 27 have been shown to be patentable over Bowman and Asmussen. The Examiner has not shown that Li cures the Appeal 2009-004904 Application 10/377,117 12 deficiencies of Bowman and Asmussen. Therefore, we conclude claims 6, 9, 21, 29, and 31 are not obvious over Bowman, Asmussen, and Li. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22- 24, 26-28, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bowman and Asmussen is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 9, 14-18, 21, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bowman, Asmussen, and Li is reversed. REVERSED llw HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP 11350 RANDOM HILLS ROAD SUITE 600 FAIRFAX VA 22030 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation