MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2020004071 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 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.
15/186,223 06/17/2016 MICHAEL JOSEPH HOPCROFT 355652-US-NP/215340 8181
45809 7590 10/20/2021
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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):
shbdocketing@shb.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL JOSEPH HOPCROFT,
ROBERT LOVEJOY GOODWIN, FAN WANG, and
UTKARSH JAIN
__________
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–24, and 26–28, all of
the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 2, 6–8, 14, 18–20, and 25 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
December 5, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 12, 2020); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 17, 2019); the Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed October 8, 2019); and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed March 12, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed
June 17, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s
contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

2

We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods, media, and systems relate to
provid[ing] for a match fix-up stage that removes matching
documents identified for a search query that don’t actually
contain terms from the search query. A representation of each
document (e.g., a forward index storing a list of terms for each
document) is used to identify valid matching documents (i.e.,
documents containing terms from the search query) and invalid
matching documents (i.e., documents that don’t contain terms
from the search query). Any invalid matching documents are
removed from further processing and ranking for the search
query.
Spec., Abstr.
As noted above, claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–24, and 26–28 are
pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 25 (claim 1), 26–
27 (claim 9), 27–28 (claim 15) (Claims App.). Claims 3–5 and 21–24
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 11–13 and 26–28 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 9, and claims 16 and 17 depend directly
from claim 15. Id. at 25–30.
Claims 1, 9, and 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. A computer-implemented method, carried out by at
least one server having one or more processors, the method
comprising:
employing a probabilistic matcher to identify, from a
search index storing information regarding a plurality of
documents, a set of matching documents by querying the search
index with one or more terms, wherein the set of matching
documents identified by the probabilistic matcher includes one
or more valid matching documents having at least one of the one
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

3

or more terms and one or more invalid matching documents not
having any of the one or more terms;
subsequent to identifying the set of matching documents
based on the one or more terms, accessing a representation for
each matching document of the set of matching documents,
wherein the representation for each matching document includes
a plurality of terms present within that matching document;
comparing the terms present within each matching
document to the one or more terms;
identifying at least one invalid matching document from
the one or more invalid matching documents by determining that
the at least one invalid matching document does not include any
of the one or more terms; and
upon identifying the at least one invalid matching
document, removing the at least one invalid matching document
from the set of matching documents.
Id. at 25 (emphasis added).
9. One or more computer storage media storing computer-
useable instructions that, when used by one or more computing
devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform a
method, the method comprising:
querying a bit vector search index with one or more terms
to identify a set of matching documents, the bit vector search
index comprising a plurality of bit vectors, each bit vector
comprising an array of bits that store information for a
corresponding collection of terms contained in documents,
wherein each bit in a given bit vector from the plurality of bit
vectors indicates whether one or more documents corresponding
with the bit include at least one term from the corresponding
collection of terms for the given bit vector, wherein the set of
matching documents includes one or more valid matching
documents having at least one of the one or more terms and one
or more invalid matching documents not having any of the one
or more terms;
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

4

receiving a forward index for each matching document of
the set of matching documents, wherein the forward index
includes one or more terms included in each matching document;
using the forward index for each matching document of
the set of matching documents, identifying at least one invalid
matching document that does not include any of the one or more
terms; and
removing the at least one invalid matching document from
the set of matching documents to create a filtered set of one or
more matching documents.
Id. at 26–27 (emphases added).
15. A computerized system comprising: one or more
processors; and
one or more computer storage media storing computer-
useable instructions that, when used by the one or more
processors, cause the system to:
identify, from a search index, a set of matching documents
by querying the search index with one or more terms, the set of
matching documents including one or more valid matching
documents having at least one of the one or more terms and one
or more invalid matching documents not having any of the one
or more terms;
generate a preliminary ranking for each matching
document from the set of matching documents;
remove at least one matching document from the set of
matching documents based on the preliminary rankings to
provide a subset of matching documents;
identify at least one invalid matching document in the
subset of matching documents utilizing a forward index for each
matching document of the subset of matching documents and
remove the at least one invalid matching document to provide a
filtered set of matching documents;
generate a final ranking for at least a portion of the
matching documents in the filtered set of matching a documents;
and
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

5

provide a set of search results based on the final rankings.
Id. at 27–28 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Millett US 4,817,036 Mar. 28, 1989 Mar. 15, 1985
Schwenke US 2008/0177734 A1 July 24, 2008 Mar. 28, 2008
Wen US 2009/0012956 A1 Jan 8, 2009 Sept. 16, 2008
Grabarnik US 2009/0313202 A1 Dec. 17, 2009 June 13, 2008
The Examiner rejects:
a. claims 1, 3–5, and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Wen and Schwenke (Final Act. 2–6);
b. claims 9, 12, 13, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Wen and Millett (id. at 7–10);
c. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Wen, Millett, and Grabarnik (id. at 10–11); and
d. claims 15–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Wen and Grabarnik (id. at 11–14).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

6

contentions, respectively, on claims 1, 9, and 15; so we do as well.4 See
Appeal Br. 6, 14, 22; Ans. 3, 12, and 19. Because the reversals of the
rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are dispositive, we do not
address the merits of the rejections to the dependent claims further herein.
We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Over Wen and Schwenke
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, and 21–24 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Wen and Schwenke. Final Act. 2–
6. Appellant challenges the rejection of independent claim 1 separately.
Appeal Br. 6–13. For the reasons given below, we are persuaded the
Examiner errs, and we do not sustain this rejection.
Claim 1 recites,
employing a probabilistic matcher to identify, from a
search index storing information regarding a plurality of
documents, a set of matching documents by querying the search
index with one or more terms, wherein the set of matching
documents identified by the probabilistic matcher includes one
or more valid matching documents having at least one of the one
or more terms and one or more invalid matching documents not
having any of the one or more terms.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Thus, we understand that,
based on the plain language of claim 1, the recited set of matching
documents includes both valid matching documents that include one or more
of the query terms and invalid matching documents that include none of the

4 Appellant also challenges separately the rejection of claim 11, but our
reversal of the rejection of independent claim 9 is dispositive of the rejection
of claim 11. Appeal Br. 22; see Adv. Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

7

query matching terms. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (“[T]he [Office] applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.”); see also Spec. ¶ 5 (“The technology described herein
provides for a match fix-up stage to remove invalid matching documents
returned from a bit vector search index.”)
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Schwenke teaches or
suggests this “employing” step. Final Act. 4 (citing Schwenke ¶ 50; Fig. 2
(reference numerals 201, 204)). In particular, Schwenke discloses that a
query term “china” may result in exact matches as the highest probability
matches and lower probability matches of “chair” and “chalk,” as partial
matches due to the shared “ch” and non-matches, such as “table.” Schwenke
¶ 50, Fig. 1 (reference numerals 201–204); see Spec. ¶ 5 (describing false
positives due to probabilistic approach). Thus, with reference to Schwenke,
a valid matching set would include documents including “china,” and an
invalid matching set would include documents including “chair,” “chalk,”
and/or “table, but not “china.”
Further, claim 1 recites, “subsequent to identifying the set of matching
documents based on the one or more terms, accessing a representation for
each matching document of the set of matching documents, wherein the
representation for each matching document includes a plurality of terms
present within that matching document.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.)
(emphases added). Thus, we understand that, once the set of matching
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

8

documents has been identified, a “representation” of each valid and invalid
matching document is accessed, and the “representation” includes “a
plurality of terms present within that matching document.” See Spec. ¶ 5
(“Generally, a representation of each document is used to identify valid
matching documents and invalid matching documents. The representation
may be, for instance, a forward index that stores a list of terms for each
document. Any invalid matching documents are removed such that they are
not considered by the final ranker.” (emphasis added)). The plurality of
“terms present” may include the query term, e.g., “china,” or other partial or
non-matching terms, e.g., “chair,” “chalk,” and/or “table.”
The Examiner finds Wen discloses, “The structured document
retrieval process 400 continues to 416 in the XML structure, in which it
searches for highest level and match, and then searches the next lower level
for any matched terms.” and “The structured document retrieval process 400
continues to 418 in which those documents having the closest match are
displayed.” Final Act. 3 (quoting Wen ¶¶ 72, 73). Referring to Wen’s
paragraphs 42 and 49, the Examiner further finds:
For example, when a user enter a query such as “history of
china”, subsequent to identifying only documents with matching
term “history of china” it also accessing representation of
documents matching with other Chinese history such as “tang
dynasty”, “ming dynasty”, etc. Representation of these
documents includes plurality of queried term as claimed.
Ans. 7 (citing Wen ¶¶ 42, 49). Based on these disclosures, the Examiner
finds that Wen teaches or suggests the recited “accessing” step. For the
reasons given below, we disagree with the Examiner.
Appellant contends, “In accordance with claim 1, after a query is
performed to identify a set of matching documents that includes valid and
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

9

invalid matching documents, a representation of each of those matching
documents is assessed.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant contends
that Wen teaches first ferreting or filtering out documents that do not contain
the query term(s). Id. (quoting Wen ¶ 70 (“If the answer to decision 406 is
[the particular structured document does not contains the index term(s)],
then the structured document retrieval process 400 continues to 408 in which
those documents that do not contain any of the search terms are ferreted (i.e.,
filtered) out.”)); see Wen, Fig. 7a (depicting filtering “invalid” matching
documents (step 408) before performing operations on the structured
documents (step 410)). Appellant contends Wen’s disclosure
is in contrast to claim 1, in which a representation of each
matching document from a set of matching documents is
accessed in which the set of matching documents includes both:
(1) one or more valid matching documents having at least one of
the terms used to query; and (2) one or more invalid matching
documents not having any of the terms used to query. In claim 1,
a representation for both valid and invalid matching documents
are accessed.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 5 (“Based on the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner appears to be arguing that the second element doesn’t
require obtaining a representation for each valid matching document and
each invalid matching document.”). This contention is consistent with our
understanding of claim 1’s “accessing” step, and we agree with Appellant
that the portions of Wen cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest this
limitation.
Moreover, the Examiner’s findings regarding Wen’s paragraphs 42
and 49 do not persuade us otherwise. In paragraph 42, Wen discloses:
The structured document retrieval system 100 uses the
hierarchical indexing mechanism to assigns index terms that can
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

10

precisely describe the inherent concept for each element while
filtering out terms with too broad or too narrow semantics.
Consider that a sample document about “China” contains a
section “History”, which in turn also contains subsections such
as “Tang dynasty”, “Ming dynasty” and “Qing dynasty”, etc.
Selecting suitable index terms for the section “History” is
challenging. “China” appears to be a relatively broad term that
will provide too many results. “Tang”, “Ming”, and “Qing” by
comparison appear to be narrow terms that may miss relevant
documents. Terms such as “history” and “dynasty” appear to
be good candidate terms.
Wen ¶ 42; see id. ¶ 49 (“As such, the sections ‘China’ and ‘History’ form
the index path from the query ‘history of China’; a user querying history of
China returns this path.”). Thus, Wen describes documents that may contain
the query term(s), as well as other terms, and possible disadvantages of
filtering based on those other terms. We are not persuaded this discloses
teaches or suggests, “accessing a representation” for each valid and invalid
matching document.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Wen and Schwenke, and we do not sustain
that rejection. Further, Appellant challenges the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 3–5 and 21–24 based only on its challenge to the rejection
of their base claim, independent claim 1; and, therefore, we also do not
sustain the rejection of those claims.
B. Obviousness over Wen and Millett
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 9, 12, 13, and 26–28 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Wen and Millett. Final Act. 7–10.
Appellant only challenges the rejection of independent claim 9 separately.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

11

Appeal Br. 13–22. For the reasons given below, we are persuaded the
Examiner errs, and we do not sustain this rejection.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the set of matching documents includes one
or more valid matching documents having at least one of the one or more
terms and one or more invalid matching documents not having any of the
one or more terms.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Thus, as similarly noted
above with respect to claim 1, we understand that, based on the plain
language of claim 9, the recited set of matching documents includes both
valid matching documents that include one or more of the query terms and
invalid matching documents that include none of the query matching terms.
See supra Section A.
Although the Examiner relies on Schwenke to teach or suggest the
identical limitation in claim 1,5 the Examiner finds Wen teaches or suggests
this limitation of claim 9. Final Act. 7 (citing Wen ¶¶ 35, 36, 89, Figs. 3, 4,
7, 8). In particular, Wen discloses:
Suppose a user who studies history of military operations intends
to find out “what military aircrafts were used in Desert Storm”.
An initial search may yield two articles Military Aircrafts and
Gulf War as highly-ranking results both containing a portion
with relevant content. The user has to scan each document (often
quite long) to look for relevant content from the entire returned
document.

5 The Examiner finds “Wen does not explicitly disclose . . . wherein the set
of matching documents identified by the probabilistic matcher includes
one or more valid matching documents and one or more invalid
matching documents having at least one or more terms and one or more
invalid matching document not having any of the one or more terms.”
Final Act. 3–4 (Examiner’s emphasis); but see Adv. Act. 2–3 “(Wen teaches
this concept and argued limitation in abstract, line 3-10, Para [0068].).
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

12

Wen ¶ 89; see id. ¶ 36 (“Relevant document elements with arbitrary
granularity can be obtained using a scalable element retrieve strategy by
employing normal keyword-based queries.”). Based on these disclosures,
the Examiner finds, “gulf war is the invalid matching document and military
aircraft is the valid document for the search query what military aircrafts
were used in Desert Storm.” Final Act. 7; Ans. 13.
Appellant contends,
instead of teaching a query that returns a set of matching
documents that includes one or more valid matching documents
(having a query term) and one or more invalid matching
documents (not having any query term), Wen specifically
discusses performing a query that removes all documents that do
not have a query term (i.e., invalid matching documents). In
particular, steps 406 and 408 of FIGS. 7 and 8 specifically
indicate that documents that do not contain a term are filtered
out. Additionally, [Wen] states: “those documents that do not
contain any of the search terms are ferreted (i.e., filtered out).”
As such, Wen only returns valid matching documents.
Appeal Br. 16 (footnote omitted; emphasis added); see Reply Br. 9–10. We
agree with Appellant.
Wen discloses the query: “what military aircrafts were used in Desert
Storm.” Wen ¶ 89. Based on the terms included in the query, two articles
are retrieved each of which has “at least one of the one or more [query]
terms.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Wen may disclose the concept of
searching for documents to identify valid and invalid matching documents
and filtering out the invalid matching documents, but, given this filtering,
the Examiner does not show Wen teaches the steps of “receiving a forward
index for each matching document of the set of matching documents.” Final
Act. 7–8 (citing Wen ¶ 71, Figs. 3, 4); see Appeal Br. 18–19 (missing
“receiving” step); see also Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

13

Thus, Appellant contends each of Wen’s retrieved articles is a valid
matching document; we agree with Appellant. Consequently, Appellant
persuades us that the portions of Wen cited by the Examiner do not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 9 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Wen and Millett, and we do not sustain that
rejection. Further, Appellant challenges the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 12, 13, and 26–28 based only on its challenge to the
rejection of their base claim, independent claim 9; and, therefore, we also do
not sustain the rejection of those claims. In addition, because we find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 9 and because the Examiner
does not contend that Grabarnik supplies the limitations of claim 9 that are
missing from Wen and Millett, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11. See Final Act. 10–11; Appeal Br. 22; Ans. 18–19.
C. Obviousness Over Wen and Grabarnik
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 15–17 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Wen and Grabarnik. Final Act. 11–14. Appellant
only challenges the rejection of independent claim 15 separately. Appeal
Br. 22–23. For the reasons given below, we are persuaded the Examiner
errs, and we do not sustain this rejection.
Claim 15 recites instructions causing one or more processors to
identify, from a search index, a set of matching documents
by querying the search index with one or more terms, the set of
matching documents including one or more valid matching
documents having at least one of the one or more terms and one
or more invalid matching documents not having any of the one
or more terms.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

14

Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As with the similar,
disputed limitation in claim 9, the Examiner finds Wen teaches or suggests
this disputed limitation. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Wen ¶¶ 35, 36, 89, Figs. 3,
4, 7, 8); see Ans. 20.
Similar to its challenge to the rejection of claim 9, Appellant contends
Wen does not teach this disputed limitation (see supra Section B) and
Grabarnik does not cure the deficiencies of Wen (Appeal Br. 23). See Reply
Br. 11 (“Instead, Wen discusses an approach ‘in which the search engine
performs the search on all of the structured documents for the index terms’
to filter out any documents that don’t contain a query term. [Wen ¶¶ 69–
70.]”). For the same reasons given above with respect to claim 9, Appellant
persuades us that the portions of Wen cited by the Examiner do not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation.
In addition, the Examiner finds Wen and Grabarnik teaches or
suggests instructions causing one or more processors to “generate a
preliminary ranking for each matching document from the set of matching
documents; [and] remove at least one matching document from the set of
matching documents based on the preliminary rankings to provide a subset
of matching documents,” as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 12–13; see
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.) (emphases added). However, because we are
persuaded the Examiner fails to show that Wen teaches or suggests the set of
matching documents including both valid and invalid documents, we also
are persuaded the Examiner fails to show that Wen and Grabarnik teach or
suggest, “generat[ing] a preliminary ranking” of the valid and invalid
matching documents and “remov[ing] at least one matching document” from
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

15

the set of valid and invalid matching documents based on the preliminary
rankings. Appeal Br. 23.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 15 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Wen and Grabarnik, and we do not sustain
that rejection. Further, Appellant challenges the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 16 and 17 based on its challenge to the rejection of their
base claim, independent claim 15; and, therefore, we also do not sustain the
rejection of those claims.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting:
a. claims 1, 3–5, and 21–24 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Wen and Schwenke;
b. claims 9, 12, 13, and 26–28 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Wen and Millett;
c. claim 11 as obvious over the combined teachings of Wen,
Millett, and Grabarnik; and
d. claims 15–17 as obvious over the combined teachings of Wen
and Grabarnik.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–24, and 26–
28 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11–13, 15–
17, 21–24, and 26–28.
Appeal 2020-004071
Application 15/186,223

16

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5,
21–24
103 Wen, Schwenke 1, 3–5, 21–
24
9, 12, 13,
26–28
103 Wen, Millett 9, 12, 13,
26–28
11 103 Wen, Millett,
Grabarnik
11
15–17 103 Wen, Grabarnik 15–17
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 9,
11–13, 15–
17, 21–24,
26–28
REVERSED