Ex Parte Wald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2018

13779574 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)

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.
13/779,574 02/27/2013 Gideon Wald 079894.1656 7826
91230 7590 01/08/2018
Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE ZONG, RUOLEI
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2018 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIDEON WALD, WENJIE FU, YANXIN SHI, and
HONG YAN
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 22, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Answer
(mailed October 17, 2016, “Ans.”), and Reply Brief (filed December 12,
2016, “Reply Br.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to generation of a nickname dictionary.
Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation
emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
accessing, by one or more computing devices, one or more
messages directed to one or more target users and comprising
one or more words, each of the target users being associated with
one or more names;
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, one or
more name-word associations between at least one name
associated with at least one of the target users and one or more
words identified in the messages, the identifying being based, at
least in part, on statistics comprising:
a number of occurrences of a candidate word in messages
directed to target users sharing a same name; and
a number of occurrences of the candidate word in
messages to one or more users not associated with the one or
more names', and
2
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a
confidence score for each of the one or more name-word
associations.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kenedy et al.
“Kenedy”
Eustice et al.
“Eustice”
Brzozowski
Wald et al.
“Wald”
Donna Roberts, Complement of an Event, Oswego City School
District Regents Exam Prep Center (Feb. 2001),
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/apr6/lcompl.ht
m (hereinafter “Roberts”).
US 2008/0228735 Al Sept. 18, 2008
US 2010/0030715 Al Feb. 4, 2010
US 2010/0191782 Al July 29, 2010
US 8,433,762 B1 Apr. 30, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—20 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent No.
8,433,762 Bl. Non-Final Act. 2^1.
Claims 1—4, 6—13, 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eustice, Brzozowski, and Roberts. Non-Final Act.
5-9.
3
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eustice, Brzozowski, Roberts, and Kenedy. Non-Final
Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2—11; Ans. 2—8) and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief (Ans. 8—12) and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Double Patenting
Appellants have not contested the nonstatutory double patenting
rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds “[i]f we consider ‘a candidate word in messages
directed to users sharing a same name’ [as taught by Brzozowski] as an
event A in Roberts’ disclosure, then [the disputed limitation of] ‘the
candidate word not associated with the one or more names’ is the
complement of event A [according to Roberts].” Non-Final Act. 7. The
Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious ... to use calculating
probability of complement event taught by Roberts to modify the
method/CRM/system of Eustice-Brzozowski in order to identify all possible
outcomes of an event to make a better decision.” Ans. 5.
4
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding is erroneous because what
the Examiner finds to be the complement (set A') has a different sample
space S than the original set A and, therefore, is not its complement.
Appellants explain thusly:
As setup by the Office Action, the event A maps to the
“number of occurrences of a candidate word,” while the sample
space S maps to “messages directed to users sharing a same
name.” Using the Office Action’s example, the complement
would actually be: [“]a number of occurrences of non­
candidate words in the messages directed to users sharing a
same name.” Unlike the Office Action's mapping, this mapping
maintains the same sample space S while defining the
complement of A to be everything else in S that is not A.
Notably, this is not what is recited by Claim 1.
App. Br. 8.
The Examiner responds thusly:
Mathematically, a sample space S can be represented by S = C x
N, where C denotes a set of all candidate words (for example C
= {Pat, Bud}), N denotes a set of all user names (for example N
= (Patricia, Patrick}), and x is Cartesian product. Then S = C x
N include[s] all combination of candidate words and user names
(for example {(Pat, Patricia), (Pat, Patrick), (Bud, Patricia),
(Bud, Patric[k])}).
Ans. 10 (emphasis added). Appellants reply, arguing “the [Examiner’s
foregoing] example is irrelevant to the claim language, as Claim 1 does not
recite identifying non-candidate words.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the sample space S considered by the
Examiner is not limited to messages directed to users sharing a same name
but includes all user names: both the shared same name, as within set A, and
other names, as those outside of set Abut within sample space S. See Ans.
5
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
10—11. For example, as explained by the Examiner, if A includes the user
name Patricia associated with the candidate word Pat (i.e., (Pat, Patricia)),
then all other combinations of all user names (e.g., Patricia and Patrick) are
outside A, including (i) the candidate word (i.e., Pat) in messages of users
other than Patricia (e.g., Patrick, as represented by (Pat, Patrick)); (ii) non­
candidate words (e.g., Bud) associated with the “same name” Patricia (i.e.,
(Bud, Patricia)); and (iii) non-candidate words (e.g., Bud) associated with
users other than Patricia (e.g., Patrick, as represented by (Bud, Patrick)).
Using the example above, the sample space S includes all possible
combinations of nicknames and names:
S = {(Pat, Patricia), (Pat, Patrick), (Bud, Patricia), (Bud, Patrick)}
The set A includes only the candidate word (“Pat”) and user name
(“Patricia”):
A = {(Pat, Patricia)}
The complement A' then meets the following equations:
A' = S — A
= {(Pat, Patricia), (Pat, Patrick), (Bud, Patricia), (Bud, Patrick)}
— {(Pat, Patricia)}
= {(Pat, Patrick), (Bud, Patricia), (Bud, Patrick)}
Thus, as required by the disputed limitation, A' includes the candidate word
(Pat) in messages to one or more users (Patrick) not associated with the one
or more names (Patricia).
Although the example posited by the Examiner supports the finding
that A' includes the candidate word, albeit along with non-candidate words
6
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
(e.g., Bud), other examples limited to sets including only the candidate word
provide similar results. For example, if
A = {(Pat, Patricia)} and
S = {(Pat, Patricia), (Pat, Patrick)}
then
A' = S — A
= {(Pat, Patricia), (Pat, Patrick)} — {(Pat, Patricia)}
= {(Pat, Patrick)}
Thus, this example also demonstrates the complement of a number of
occurrences of a candidate word (e.g., Pat) in messages directed to target
users sharing a same name (e.g., Patricia) results in a number of occurrences
of the candidate word (e.g., Pat) in messages to one or more users not
associated with the one or more names (i.e., not associated with Patricia,
such as Patrick).
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree with
Appellants’ arguments. Instead, we agree with the Examiner in finding that
forming the complement of a candidate word in messages directed to users
sharing a same name results in the disputed limitation of the candidate word
not associated with the one or more names. Thus, the combination of
Brzozowski and Roberts teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,10, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the rejections of dependent claims 2—
9, 11—14, and 16—20 which are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting.
7
Appeal 2017-003092
Application 13/779,574
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8