Microsoft Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2019003587 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2020)

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.
14/475,463 09/02/2014 Nikita Voronkov 355577.01 9006
69316 7590 12/04/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
MRABI, HASSAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKITA VORONKOV,
DMITRIY MEYERZON, YAUHEN SHNITKO, ANINDA RAY,
MANFRED BERRY, KJETIL BERGSTRAND, JOHANNES GEHRKE,
and EIRIK KNUTSEN
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–17 and 21–23, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states that the real party in interest is Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC, “which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Microsoft Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

2
TECHNOLOGY
The invention relates to rapid indexing of document tags. Spec. Title.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method executed on a computing device to rapidly index
document tags, the method comprising:
receiving, at the computing device, data representing a tag
signal containing a tag and a tag type associated with the tag,
wherein:
the tag contains data representing a user
interaction with a content document stored in a computer
network; and
the tag type contains data indicating an addition or
a deletion of the tag to/from the content document in a
graph based index referencing the content document;
storing the tag and the associated tag type contained in the
tag signal, in a persistent data store on the computer network;
indexing the tag containing the data representing the user
interaction with the content document as a tag document in a text
based index that also references the content document; and
modifying one or more relationships between the tag
document and the content document in the graph based index
according to the tag type containing the data indicating an
addition or a deletion of the tag to/from the content document in
the graph-based index.
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Name Number Date
Goldman US 8,775,517 B1 July 8, 2014
Katic US 2016/0026713 A1 Jan. 28, 2016
Kusumura US 2010/0281030 A1 Nov. 4, 2010
Nielsen US 7,636,732 B1 Dec. 22, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Non-Final Act.
1, 3–9, 11–16, 21–23 Katic, Kusumura 4
2 Katic, Kusumura, Nielsen 13
10, 17 Katic, Kusumura, Goldman 14
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Katic and
Kusumura teaches or suggests all limitations recited in claim 1, including “a
tag signal containing a tag and a tag type associated with the tag” wherein
“the tag contains data representing a user interaction with a content
document” and “the tag type contains data indicating an addition or a
deletion of the tag to/from the content document in a graph based index
referencing the content document”?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Katic and
Kusumura teaches or suggests “in response to a detection of the content
document in the text based index, storing a relationship between the tag and
the content document as an edge in the graph based index when the tag type
is an addition type,” as recited in claim 9?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Katic,
Kusumura, and Goldman teaches or suggests “in response to a detection of
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

4
the content document in the text based index, removing a relationship
between the tag and the content document as an edge in the graph based
index when the tag type is a deletion type,” as recited in claim 10?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Katic and
Kusumura teaches or suggests “receiving . . . an identification of a content
document”; “determining whether the tag and the content document already
exist in a text based index”; and “in response to determining that the tag and
the content document exist in the text based index, retrieving, from the text
based index, a tag identifier and a document identifier corresponding to the
tag and the content document, respectively,” as recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–8 and 11–17
Claim 1 recites “a tag signal containing a tag and a tag type associated
with the tag,” wherein “the tag contains data representing a user interaction
with a content document” and “the tag type contains data indicating an
addition or a deletion of the tag to/from the content document in a graph
based index referencing the content document.” Claim 1 further recites
“modifying one or more relationships between the tag document and the
content document in the graph based index according to the tag type
containing the data indicating an addition or a deletion of the tag to/from the
content document in the graph-based index.”
First, Appellant argues that “[t]he edge 206 in Katic is not a tag
document that contains data representing a user interaction with the external
node 208 in the social graph 200” because “by adding the edge 206, Katic
teaches modifying a relationship between the user node 202 and the external
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

5
node 208, not between ‘a tag document’ (representing a user interaction) and
the external node 208.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. As currently written, this claim
does not specify that the tag document must be a node in the graph rather
than an edge. As the Examiner explains, in Katic, user actions such as
(A) “a user posting a comment”; (B) selecting an icon on a third-party
webpage to “check-in”; or (C) sending and accepting friend requests may
create an edge between the user and another node (e.g., the node
representing the friend or third-party webpage). Ans. 9. Such an edge
“contains data representing a user interaction with a content document” (e.g.,
the “check-in” on the third-party website) and has “one or more
relationships” with “the content document” (e.g., the edge is connected to
the node for the third-party website). Thus, Appellant fails to explain
sufficiently why Katic’s edge does not meet the claim language as presently
written.
Second, Appellant argues Kusumura uses an “LR index,” not a “graph
based index” as claimed. Appeal Br. 13. “But one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner relies on Katic for teaching the
claimed graph based index, not Kusumura. Non-Final Act. 6.
Third, Appellant argues that in Kusumura, “a signal for adding or
removing an entry in the LR index may be needed” whereas “no signal is
needed for Katic to add the edges 206.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant fails to
sufficiently explain this argument. See Ans. 13. Although the particular
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

6
examples chosen by the Examiner from Katic involve creating new
relationships (e.g., a new friend request), Appellant has not sufficiently
explained why it would not have been obvious that relationships sometimes
also need to be modified in the opposite direction (e.g., unfriending
someone).
Appellant does not separately argue the rejections of claims 2 (which
adds Nielsen) and 17 (which adds Goldman).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1 and 12, and their dependent claims 2–8, 11, and 13–17, which
Appellant does not argue separately.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “in response to a detection of the content document in
the text based index, storing a relationship between the tag and the content
document as an edge in the graph based index when the tag type is an
addition type.”
Similar to claim 1, Appellant argues that although Katic discloses an
edge 206 between user node 202 and external node 208, “[n]either the user
node 202 nor the external node 208 is a ‘tag [that] contains data representing
a user interaction with a content document.’” Appeal Br. 14. As discussed
above for claim 1, the Examiner is relying on Katic’s edge 206 as containing
data representing a user interaction with a content document, not nodes 202
or 208. Thus, Appellant has not adequately addressed the Examiner’s
rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

7
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “in response to a detection of the content document
in the text based index, removing a relationship between the tag and the
content document as an edge in the graph based index when the tag type is a
deletion type.”
Appellant argues that “[n]one of Goldman’s nodes represent a tag
‘that contains data representing a user interaction with a content document.’”
Appeal Br. 14. As discussed above for claims 1 and 9, the Examiner relies
on Katic’s disclosures for edge 206 for this aspect of the claims, not
Goldman’s disclosures of nodes. Thus, Appellant has not adequately
addressed the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claims 21–23
For independent claim 21, in addition to the same arguments made for
claim 1 discussed above, Appellant further argues that “[c]laim 21 include[s]
certain feature[s] not recited in claim 1,” specifically “receiving . . . an
identification of a content document”; “determining whether the tag and the
content document already exist in a text based index”; and “in response to
determining that the tag and the content document exist in the text based
index, retrieving, from the text based index, a tag identifier and a document
identifier corresponding to the tag and the content document, respectively.”
Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant argues that “the Examiner did not provide any
discussion as to which portions of either Katic or Kusumura teach or suggest
the foregoing features of claim 21.” Id. at 16.
The Examiner responds that claim 21 “also include[s] a limitation that
has been clearly addressed in claims 12-13, [and] 22,” and that Katic
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

8
discloses “identifying existing social-graph elements having respective
names, types, categories and using identifiers for matching the entered text
([0034], [0044]).” Ans. 15.
Appellant’s Reply Brief does not further address claim 21, the
similarities of the claims identified by the Examiner, or the Examiner’s
further citations to the prior art. We note for example that claim 12 does
recite “determine whether the tag already exists in a text based index” and its
dependent claim 13 further recites “in response to determining that the tag
does exist in the text based index, retrieve a unique identifier for the tag
from the text based index.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21, and its dependent claims 22 and 23, which Appellant does not
argue separately.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–16,
21–23
103 Katic, Kusumura 1, 3–9, 11–16,
21–23

2 103 Katic, Kusumura,
Nielsen
2
10, 17 103 Katic, Kusumura,
Goldman
10, 17
OVERALL 1–17, 21–23
Appeal 2019-003587
Application 14/475,463

9
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED