Ex Parte Wittmer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201613052397 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/052,397 03/21/2011 24256 7590 08/29/2016 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philip L. Wittmer 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. 31547-134 I LEN 0034 PA 6411 EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP L. WITTMER, PETER J. VANDERHEYDEN, and STUART A. MCLEAN Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1 and 3-21. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to searching a document corpus and generating search queries. (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 9 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for enabling a search of a document corpus, compnsmg: providing for display a graphical user interface having two or more sections, wherein each section of the graphical user interface indicates a query status; in response to receipt of a search string, providing for generation of semantic terms based at least in part on the search string; in response to receipt of the search string, providing for generation of an initial search query, wherein query terms of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms, wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display; in response to a movement of a selected query term from a first section to a second section of the graphical user interface, providing, by a computer, for generation of a revised search query based on a location of the selected query term within the graphical user interface following the movement of the query term, wherein the movement of the selected query term from the first section to the second section of the graphical user interface changes the query status of the selected query term from a first query status to a second query status; and providing for a search of the database using the revised search query to return an updated set of electronic documents for display. 2 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 9. The method of claim 6 wherein the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface. Claims 1, 6-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gandert (US 2008/0301128 Al; Dec. 4, 2008) and Srikanth (US 2011/0196852 Al; Aug. 11, 2011). Claims 3-5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Gandert, Srikanth, and Itoh (US 2009/0182733 Al; July 16, 2009). § 103 Rejection-Gandert and Srikanth Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 17-21 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 18-19; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that the combination of Gandert and Srikanth would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "generation of an initial search query, wherein query terms of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms, wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display." The Examiner found that the text box of Gandert, in which a user submits a search term that results in the generation of multiple suggested terms, corresponds to the limitation "generation of an initial search query ... wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display." (Ans. 3.) The Examiner further found that the search engine of Srikanth, which generates a semantic representation of a query, corresponds to the limitation "wherein query terms 3 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms." (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious . . . to incorporate Srikanth into Gandert to effectively select searched documents related to the user query and generated contextual queries." (Final Act. 4.) We agree with the Examiner. Gandert relates to "presenting digital assets in response to a search query by a user to locate at least one digital asset from a database." (Abstract.) Figure 8A of Gandert illustrates interface 800, which includes text box 805, search button 810, and Inspiration Palette 825, such that "the user may specify a search term in text box 805 and submit the search term by clicking the search button 810" and "[i]n response to the user's search term, the facility has returned multiple terms for display in the Inspiration Palette 825." (i-f 58.) As illustrated in Figure 8A of Gandert, text box 805 contains the query "yoga," which generates a list of "Suggestions," for example, "Alternative Medicine" in Inspiration Palette 825. (Fig. 8A.) Because the Inspiration Palette 825 of Gandert returns a list of "Suggestions" (e.g., Alternative Medicine), Gandert teaches the limitation "generation of an initial search query ... wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display." Srikanth relates to "computer-storage media for generating contextual queries." (Abstract.) Srikanth explains that "[a] search engine receives a query from a client device along with context information provided by applications utilized during the current search session" and "a query understanding component processes the context information and query to generate a semantic representation of the query." (i-f 3.) Because the query 4 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 understanding component of Srikanth processes context information from the received query and generates a semantic representation of the query, Srikanth teaches the limitation "wherein query terms of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms." The combination of Gandert and Srikanth is nothing more than incorporating the known query understanding component of Srikanth with the known interface of Gandert for searching a digital asset database, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4) that modifying Gandert to include the known query understanding component of Srikanth would have been obvious. Appellants argue that "Srikanth merely discloses generation of a semantic representation of a received query, which is further processed by a data source command generator to select several data source commands that are issued to data sources to return answers and results to a search engine in response to the user query" and: [C]onstructing a representation of the query itself that deconstructs the query into a number of nodes (e.g., query type, context, and display template), as taught by Srikanth, does not teach or fairly suggest searching a database with an initial search query that includes one or more semantic terms that are semantically similar to terms of a received search string. (App. Br. 19 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 3.) However, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Gandert and Srikanth, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The 5 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 Examiner cited to Gandert for teaching the limitation "generation of an initial search query ... wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display" and cited Srikanth for teaching the limitation "wherein query terms of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms." (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Gandert and Srikanth would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "generation of an initial search query, wherein query terms of the initial search query include one or more of the semantic terms, wherein the initial search query is used to search a database and return a set of returned electronic documents for display." Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 6-8, 13, and 14 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6-8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 15, 19, and 21 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 15, 19, and 21, as well as dependent claims 1 7, 18, and 20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 Dependent Claims 9-12 We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 22- 23; see also Reply Br. 4--5) that the combination of Gandert and Srikanth would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 9, which includes the limitation "wherein the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface." The Examiner found that Figure 8A of Gandert corresponds to the limitation "wherein the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface." (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4--5.) We agree with the Examiner. Figure 8A of Gandert further includes Action Palette 830, which is divided into sub-regions. (i-f 58.) Gandert explains that "the facility allows the user to indicate the importance of images and/ or terms added to the Action Palette [830]," for example, "by providing a weighting or ranking value." (i-f 28.) Gandert further explains that "[t]he facility allows the user to place an image and/or term in the Action Palette using the technique known as 'drag-and-drop."' (i-f 27.) Because Gandert explains that Action Palette 830 has sub-regions that allows users to indicate importance of terms added by "drag-and-drop," Gandert teaches the limitation "wherein the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface." Appellants argue that "Figure 8A of Gandert does not teach or fairly suggest that the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user 7 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 interface" (App. Br. 22-23 (emphasis omitted)) because "Figure 8A merely depicts a user interface 800 including a text box 805, a search button 810, an Inspiration Palette ... an Action Palette 830 ... a Reaction Palette 855 ... , and a grouping of multiple check boxes 815" (id. at 23). Similarly, Appellants argue that "FIG. 8E of Gandert does not teach or fairly suggest that the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface" because "FIG. 8E merely depicts a user search term 'exercise' entered into text box 880 and search terms in the region 897 that may be associated with the 'exercise' search term." (Reply Br. 4.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Figure 8A includes Action Palette 830, in which users can "drag-and-drop" terms to sub-regions to indicate importance (or relevance) of such terms. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Gandert and Srikanth would have rendered obvious dependent claim 9, which includes the limitation "wherein the relevance status of the query terms is based at least in part on the location of the query terms within the sections of the graphical user interface." Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 10 and 11 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 9, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11, as well as dependent claim 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 9. 8 Appeal2015-004022 Application 13/052,397 § 103 Rejection-Gandert, Srikanth, and Itoh Dependent claims 3 and 16 recite limitations similar to dependent claim 9, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 16, as well as dependent claims 4 and 5, for the same reasons discussed with respect to rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gandert and Srikanth. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-21 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation