Ex Parte Whitman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2008

10873974 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD M. WHITMAN and CHRISTOPHER L. SCOFIELD
____________

Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 16, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Whitman and Scofield (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 10, 13
through 21, 23 through 34, and 37 through 50. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants' invention relates to techniques for refining search queries.
See generally Spec. paragraph [0002]. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974

1. A search engine system, comprising:

a search phrase selection component that selects search phrases from a
record of prior search query submissions of a plurality of users of a search
engine, each search phrase comprising a sequence of two or more terms;

a data structure that associates each of a plurality of key terms with a
corresponding set of related search phrases selected by the search phrase
selection component; and

a query processing component that is responsive to a submission by a
user of a single-term search query containing a key term by looking up from
the data structure a corresponding set of related search phrases to suggest to
the user.

The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Bowman US 6,006,225 Dec. 21, 1999

Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 10, 13 through 21, 23 through 34, and
37 through 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Bowman.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 7, 2007) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed November 20, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed May 7,
2007) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 10, 13 through 21, 23 through 34,
and 37 through 50.

2
Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974

OPINION
Appellants contend (App. Br. 7-8) that Bowman fails to disclose the
data structure recited in part (b) of claim 1, primarily because Bowman does
not disclose "search phrases selected by the search phrase selection
component" (emphasis ours) from recorded prior search query submissions.
Further, Bowman does not disclose associating each key term with related
search phrases, where a search phrase is defined as "a sequence of two or
more terms." The Examiner asserts (Ans. 3) that in column 2, line 64-
column 3, line 5, of Bowman, "related terms or related phrases [see 910 of
fig. 9] can be added to the present query, and then presented to the user via a
user interface." The Examiner (Ans. 3-4) refers to "outdoor trail-bike,"
"outdoor trail-sports," and "outdoor trail-vacation" in Figures 8B and 9 of
Bowman as satisfying the claimed search phrases. The issue is whether
Bowman discloses "search phrases" and associating key terms with "search
phrases."
Bowman discloses (col. 2, ll. 47-50) that "correlation data is stored in
a correlation data structure … which is used to look up related terms in
response to query submissions." "[E]ach entry in the data structure is in the
form of a key term and a corresponding related terms list. Each related
terms list contains the terms which have historically appeared together (in
the same query) with the respective key term" (emphasis ours). (See col. 2,
l. 64-col. 3, l. 1). Bowman (col. 4, ll. 4-7) describes the invention as a
method "for generating related query terms" (emphasis ours). Throughout
the entire patent, Bowman discusses a data structure including related terms,
not phrases. Further, in Bowman's query correlation table in Figure 1, the
single word terms "astronomy," "sagan," and "universe" appear as related
3
Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974

terms under the key term "cosmos," and "programming," "coffee," and "api"
appear under the key term "Java." Similarly, Figures 5A and 5B of Bowman
show a list of N single word terms under each key term "bike," "outdoor,"
and "trail." Figures 8B and 9 each display the top three related term results
for the multiple term query "outdoor trail," as obtained from the correlation
table of Figure 5B. Even if Figures 8B and 9 could be considered the
claimed data structures, they show an association between key term "outdoor
trail" and related search terms "bike," "sports," and "vacation," not related
search phrases. As Bowman fails to disclose the claimed related "search
phrases," Bowman fails to anticipate independent claim 1 and its
dependents, claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, and 42.
Independent claim 8, like claim 1, recites generating a data structure
that associates the key term with the set of related "search phrases." Since
we have found supra that Bowman fails to teach related "search phrases,"
Bowman fails to anticipate independent claim 8 and its dependents, claims 9,
10, and 13 through 19.
Independent claim 20 recites accessing a data structure to look up a
previously-submitted "search phrase" that includes the search term from the
search query. Bowman shows in Figure 8A a results page for "trail," a
single search term query, with the results obtained from the correlation table
of Figure 5B. Figure 8A shows three single word related terms, not phrases
that include the search term. Thus, Bowman fails to disclose the claimed
step of accessing a data structure to look up a previously-submitted "search
phrase." Accordingly, Bowman fails to anticipate independent claim 20 and
its dependents, claims 21 and 23 through 28.
4
Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974

Each of independent claims 29 and 43 recites identifying a "search
phrase" submitted by users and generating a score representing the
desirability of suggesting the "search phrase" to users. As indicated supra,
Figures 1, 5A, and 5B of Bowman show correlation tables between key
words and single word related search terms that have been submitted by
users. Adjacent each related search term is a number 146 in parentheses.
Bowman discloses (col. 6, ll. 64-67, col. 9, ll. 18-25, and col. 10, ll. 27-33)
that element 146 represents a correlation score which indicates the number
of times the related term and key term have appeared in combination in a
search query. Bowman discloses (col. 13, ll. 1-38) that the related terms
with the highest correlation scores are presented to the user in response to a
search query. Nowhere does Bowman mention "search phrases" other than
the current search query. Scores in Bowman are generated for search terms,
not search phrases. Therefore, Bowman fails to anticipate independent
claims 29 and 43 and their dependents, claims 30 through 34, 37 through 41,
and 44 through 50.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5 through
10, 13 through 21, 23 through 34, and 37 through 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed.

5
Appeal 2008-0061
Application 10/873,974

REVERSED

eld

KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
6