Ex Parte Sundaresan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612466216 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. 12/466,216 05/14/2009 Neelakantan Sundaresan 2043.609US1 5374 132862 7590 01/04/2017 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. / PayPal P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2155 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): slw@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEELAKANTAN SUNDARESAN and NISHITH PARIKH1 Appeal 2016-000491 Application 12/466,216 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—15, and 17—22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify eBay Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000491 Application 12/466,216 Invention Appellants disclose a method for presenting a query directed at an information resource that includes detecting a burst in the number of queries within a time period and the display of event-related information associated with the burst within that time period. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1. below with key limitations ei 1. A method comprising: accessing a number of a plurality of queries about an item over a time period; detecting a burst of the number of the plurality of queries within the time period, the burst being an increase in the number of the plurality of queries received within the time period relative to a historical number of queries about the item received in a preceding time interval, the increase to exceed a threshold rate; searching for event-related information that is associated with the burst in the time period, the event-related information including a plurality of different event-related information of different events corresponding to the item; ranking each event-related information from the plurality of different event-related information relative to each other; in response to the detection of the burst, accessing a graph showing the burst; and presenting a signal for displaying, at a display unit, the query, the graph, and the identified event-related information on the display unit, the corresponding event-related information being displayed at the display unit based on the ranking. 2 Appeal 2016-000491 Application 12/466,216 References and Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5—15, and 17—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomkins et al. (US 2009/0157651 Al; June 18, 2009) and Gulli et al. (US 2007/0112730 Al; May 17, 2007). Final Act. 3-17. ANALYSIS Issue'. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tomkins and Gulli teaches or suggests presenting a signal for displaying a graph showing a detected burst in a number of a plurality of queries within a time period, as recited in claim 1 ? In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tomkins’ burst processor’s analysis of a query log to identify queries that exhibit an unusual change in volume or rate teaches or suggests detecting a burst in a number of a plurality of queries within a time period. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Tomkins H 17—18, 22). The Examiner relies on Gulli’s integration of a real-time map of a network—a web graph based on monitored web traffic— with a search engine to teach or suggest presenting a signal for displaying a graph showing the detected burst of Tomkins. Final Act. 5 (citing Gulli 119, 26—27, and 30, and Figs. 3—5B). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Examiner’s findings do not show that Gulli teaches or suggests presenting its graph to the user or otherwise presenting a signal to display the graph. App. Br. 16. The Examiner finds that Gulli teaches or suggests such display because in Gulli “the web graph is integrated with a search engine to improve the ranking results of the search engine, as the graph has been generated. Therefore, as the search engine is being accessed and displayed, so is the 3 Appeal 2016-000491 Application 12/466,216 web graph that is interconnected with the search engine.” Ans. 20. However, the Examiner’s findings do not show how integrating a web graph to rank results teaches or suggests displaying the graph itself. Gulli’s web graph is a data structure that can include hundreds, thousands, or even billions of nodes. Gulli 127. While Gulli teaches or suggests using this potentially complex model to generate a relevant score for ranking web objects (id. 131), we agree with Appellants that such ranking does not teach or suggest displaying the model (i.e., the web graph) itself (Final Act. 16). The Examiner does not show that Tomkins cures the noted deficiency. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the combination of Tomkins and Gulli teaches or suggests presenting a signal for displaying a graph showing a detected burst in a number of a plurality of queries within a time period, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5—15, and 17—22, which contain similar recitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—16, and 17-22. In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain whether claim 9, which is directed to a machine-readable medium that stores instructions, is directed to patentable subject matter. See MPEP §2106.1. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation