Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2021

2020003202 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2021)

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.
15/624,367 06/15/2017 Sriram Bhargav Karnati 16113-8263002 1042
26192 7590 12/09/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2021 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIRAM BHARGAV KARNATI and
VARUN SOUNDARARAJAN
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2−21. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to delivering search results with a
corresponding option to start a chat session. In particular, the system detects
that the web resources (provided by a third party content provider) listed in
the search results include a user element that initiates a live chat connection
with a third party content provider. Claim 2, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter (highlighted text denotes claim
language analyzed further below):
2. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a communications server and from a user,
spoken input that was submitted through a microphone of a
personal digital assistant;
obtaining, by the communications server, search results
using the spoken input;
determining, by the communications server and based on
analysis of a web resource provided by a third party content
provider, that the third party content provider corresponding to
one of the search results provides live interactive assistance by
way of a chat function through a chat user interface by detecting
that the web resource includes a user interface element that
initiates connection to a live chat system provided by the third
party content provider;
providing, to the user through the personal digital
assistant, an option to initiate a chat session using the chat
function provided by the third party content provider when the
search results are delivered to the user without requiring the
user to first request the web resource;
receiving, through the personal digital assistant, an
affirmation that the user has requested the initiation of the chat
session; and
initiating, by the communications server and without
redirecting the user to the web resource provided by the third
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367

3
party content provider, a chat session between the user and an
agent of the content provider.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claim App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Minert US 2013/0129072 A1 May 23, 2003
Weisberg US 2008/0288349 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
Stine US 2013/0151409 A1 Jun. 13, 2013
Kannan US 2017/0091780 A1 Mar. 30, 2017
Lu US 2018/0332167 A1 Nov. 15, 2018
REJECTION
This appeal involves multiple rejections. Final Act. 4−15.
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
2, 9, 16 103 Kannan, Lu
3, 10, 17 103 Kannan, Lu, Weisberg
4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19 103 Kannan, Lu, Weisberg,
Minert
7, 8, 14, 15, 21 103 Kannan, Lu, Minert
6, 13, 20 103 Kannan, Lu, Stine
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Our opinion focuses on the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 16 because Appellant presents arguments only for these claims. Appeal
Br. 3−7; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The particular arguments on which
we decide this Appeal involve one claim limitation, recited in independent
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367

4
claims 2, 9, and 16: detecting that the web resource includes a user interface
element that initiates connection to a live chat system provided by the third
party content provider (the “detecting limitation”).
The Examiner finds that Lu teaches the detecting limitation because
Lu describes “a search engine and an application package [that] determine
chat bots should be included in search results by matching a chat box in the
search results, a rich result identifies and provides an interface to a
particular chat box which includes a chat button [that] when selecting [it]
will launch a chat box interface within the search results page.” Final Act. 5
(citing Lu ¶¶ 20−23) (emphasis added). Lu states at paragraph 20 that “the
search query may be used to match against the chat box tags that were
supplied as part of the chat box registration.” Lu ¶ 20. Appellant argues
that Lu’s matching does not perform the recited detection because Lu is
using the search query to match keywords with tags of chat boxes previously
registered with the search engine. Appeal Br. 4. The independent claims,
however, require detecting a user interface element in a web resource, such
as, for example, detecting a text phrase in the web page that indicates that
web page as providing live chat assistance functionality. See Spec. ¶ 94.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
The Examiner has not shown that Lu detects any user interface
element in a web resource in the process of including the chat box listing in
the search results. At best, Lu performs a comparison between search query
keywords and tags stored in a database of registered chat boxes. See Ans. 4
(Examiner finding that “Lu teaches a method of using a search keyword to
form a search query to determine if a chat box should be included in search
results page.”). There is no indication in the record that in performing such
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367

5
a comparison, Lu additionally identifies whether the web page or chat box to
be included in the search results actually includes a user interface element
indicating that a live chat functionality is available.
The Examiner further explains that the process of detecting a live chat
session in the pending application and Lu are similar because Figure 2 of the
Specification and Figure 7A of Lu both show using a search query to
determine the search results that include a live chat session. Ans. 5. But
these figures, as Appellant argues, do not show the underlying process by
which each of the search result pages are generated. Reply Br. 2. We are
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “detecting” limitation requires
an analysis of the web resource to detect whether the web resource, not the
search results, includes a user interface element that initiates a connection to
a live chat system. Id. A mere comparison of keywords and tags does not
perform the recited “detecting,” regardless of the similarities between the
search results displayed using the recited detection and Lu’s keyword
matching method.
In sum, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Lu
teaches or suggests the “detecting” limitation recited in claims 2, 9, and 16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.
Appeal 2020-003202
Application 15/624,367

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 9, 16 103 Kannan, Lu 2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17 103 Kanna, Lu,
Weisberg
3, 10, 17
4, 5, 11, 12,
18, 19
103 Kannan, Lu,
Weisberg, Minert
4, 5, 11, 12,
18, 19
7, 8, 14, 15,
21
103 Kannan, Lu,
Minert
7, 8, 14, 15,
21
6, 13, 20 103 Kannan, Lu, Stine 6, 13, 20
Overall
Outcome
2−21

REVERSED