Vocus NM LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2021

2020003488 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 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.
14/189,863 02/25/2014 Rajeev Anand Kadam VHI-003 7443
138718 7590 11/24/2021
Polsinelli LLP
3 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
GORNEY, BORIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2147
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2021 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):
sfpatent@polsinelli.com
uspt@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAJEEV ANAND KADAM, GEORGY BALAYAN,
VISHAL HARSHVARDHAN SANKHLA and
SHRIKAR ARCHAK
___________

Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863
Technology Center 2100

____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 5–9 and 13–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 3. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Briefs (filed July 15, 2019, August
15, 2019, and October 31, 2019), the Reply Brief (filed April 6, 2020), the
Final Action (mailed January 15, 2019) and the Answer (mailed February 4,
2020), for the respective details.

2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The
word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

2

independent. Claims 2–4 and 10–12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
[W]hile there are RDBMs [Relational Database Management
Systems] and batch-processing frameworks that can process and
store large volumes of data, these solutions may not be robust
enough to handle massive and continuous streams of
unstructured data in real-time. Traditional relational tables are
not flexible enough for storing large amounts of irregular data.
None of these solutions is capable of delivering real-time
performance statistics.
Specification ¶ 6.
According to Appellant:
The present claim is directed at solving the problem of how to
analyze “massive and continuous streams of unstructured data in
real-time.” Specifically, the claimed solution includes
performing continuous queries at different times and merging the
results of each continuously performed query so as to provide a
continuously updating set of statistics.
Appeal Brief 6.
Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for continuous processing of unstructured data
streams, the method comprising:

joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in
§§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Vocus NM as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 3.

3 Appellant does not argue the claims individually. See Appeal Brief 6.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

3

storing information in memory regarding an entity and an
entity-specific query to be continuously applied, wherein the
entity-specific query is associated with search results for one or
more specified keywords in a context indicative of a specified
sentiment and associated statistics derived at an identified time;
receiving unstructured data from a plurality of different
continuous streams from different stream sources over a
communication network, wherein the unstructured data is
received a subsequent time after the identified time; and
executing instructions stored in memory, wherein
execution of the instructions by a processor:
filters the received unstructured data based on entity-
specific query, wherein filtering the received unstructured data
comprises
conducting a full-text search of the received unstructured
data based on the keywords specified by the entity-specific
query, and
filtering results of the conducted search to yield one or
more matches responsive to the sentiment specified by the
entity-specific query,
retrieves the statistics that were derived at the identified
time based on analytics for the matches responsive to the entity-
specific query,
updates the associated statistics for the unstructured data
received at the subsequent time, wherein the updated associated
statistics are based on filtering the unstructured data received at
the subsequent time based on the entity-specific query, and
indexes the unstructured data from the plurality of
different continuous streams from the different stream sources
based on the keywords specified by the entity-specific query,
wherein the indexed data is tagged based on the sentiment
specified by the entity-specific query, and wherein the indexed
data and the associated updated statistics are merged and

rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

4

stored in memory for retrieval in association with the entity and
a time period after the identified time.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Goeldi US 2010/0119053 A1 May 13, 2010
Spivack US 2014/0040281 A1 February 6, 2014

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 5–9 and 13–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goeldi and Spivack. Final Action 7–20.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends: “Although the Office Action admits that Goeldi
fails to teach the claimed ‘query to be continuously applied,’ the Office
Action nevertheless purports that Goeldi can teach limitations reciting how
such query is continuously applied.” Appeal Brief 8; see Reply Brief 2; see
also Final Action 14; Answer 3. Appellant argues, “by failing to teach the
claimed ‘continuously applied’ query,[] Goeldi further fails to teach that
‘continuous processing’ of a ‘query to be continuously applied’ has
‘associated statistics derived at an identified time’ and ‘updated associated
statistics [that] are based on filtering the unstructured data received at the
subsequent time.’” Reply Brief 2 (underlining omitted).
We first note, the Specification appears to only mention a query to be
continuously applied in paragraph 2 — “The present invention generally
relates to data statistics. More specifically, the present invention relates to

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

5

processing streams using continuous queries.” Furthermore, in the Appeal
Brief filed October 31, 2019, Appellant indicates that support for “an entity-
specific query to be continuously applied” is disclosed in paragraphs 18, 19
and 33–35. Appeal Brief 3. The Specification merely discloses “[f]ull-text
search engine 140 applies the queries from query manager 130 in real-time
and create indexes from the continuous streams of data from stream sources
120A-D” in paragraph 19 (emphasis added). Subsequently, the
Specification discloses “streams of data may be continuously received,
matched to a query, which may then be processed to derive statistics that
may be used to update a previous set of statistics associated with the query”
in paragraph 39 (emphasis added).
Goeldi teaches:
[A] social media analytics platform for providing analytic
measurements of online social media content by harvesting and
aggregating unstructured qualitative online social media
conversations relevant to subject matter of interest in a category
from one or more online social media sources, quantifying the
aggregated online social media conversations, and providing
actionable information based on the quantified aggregated online
social media conversations, the actionable information including
sentiment expressed among online social media participants
concerning subject matter of interest in the category.
Goeldi ¶ 5 (emphasis added); Final Action 14.
Here, Goeldi is harvesting, aggregating and quantifying the generated
social media content to provide actionable information/search results. See
Goeldi ¶ 5. We discern no meaningful difference between Goeldi’s
exposure to social media content continuously and the claimed invention’s
exposure of continuous streams of social media content, particularly in light
of the Specification. See Specification ¶ 36 (“the proliferation of social
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

6

networks and modern communication tools, users around the world are
continuously generating new data”).
The Examiner indicates “that Goeldi is not relied on to teach a ‘query
to be continuously applied.’ The Spivack reference is relied upon to teach
this limitation.” Answer 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that
“Spivack fails to cure Goeldi’s failures.” Appeal Brief 10 (citing Final
Action 14). Appellant contends: “Whereas the claims recite a continuously
updating set of statistics, Spivack’s ‘search task on a continuous basis’
merely provides search results. Mere search results as taught by [Spivack]
are not what is claimed.” Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis added). Claim 1
actually recites a method whereas “an entity and an entity-specific query to
be continuously applied” and “updates the associated statistics for the
unstructured data received at the subsequent time, wherein the updated
associated statistics are based on filtering the unstructured data received at
the subsequent time based on the entity-specific query.” Accordingly, claim
1 requires the entity-specific query to be applied continuously to search
results stemming from keyword(s) while statistics received at a subsequent
time resulting from the entity-specific query are updated. The Examiner
finds:
Spivack does teach query to be continuously applied (Spivack
Paragraph 0109, tracker performs the search task on a continuous
basis); and indexes the unstructured data from the plurality of
different continuous streams from the different stream sources
based on the keywords specified by the entity-specific query
(Spivack Paragraph 0107, In order to analyze messages on a
global level, the stream rank analyzer includes a strategy for
building an index of real-time social networking data), wherein
the indexed data is tagged based on the sentiment specified by
the entity-specific query, and wherein the indexed data (Spivack
Paragraph 0070 and 0071, order to classify types and identify
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

7

categories of messages, the natural language processing stack
utilizes a database (also referred to as ontology) of classes
together with a database of annotation rules.
Final Action 14–15 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues:
Spivack specifically describes its “continuous” “search task” as
“continuously searching for this on the Twitter website with a
random date-range interval.” Spivack, [0110]. Such “random
date-range interval” is not the same as a specifically ‘identified
time.’ There is no indication, further, that Spivack’s indexing is
based on an ‘entity-specific query’ as claimed. Nor does
Spivack’s index include tags based on a specified sentiment of
interest. Finally, Spivack is wholly silent regarding any statistics,
let alone the specifically claimed ‘statistics derived at an
identified time’ and ‘updated associated statistics’ derived ‘at the
subsequent time.’ Spivack therefore fails to cure Goeldi’s failure
to teach all the elements of the independent claims.
Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis added).
Spivack teaches:
The attention index has a long list of common keywords and
trending topics that can be used to search real-time data on social
networks. Each attention tracker will receive indexing
commands that include a specific set of keywords for a topic in
the indexing network. The attention tracker then goes and search
for those keywords on social networks such as Twitter,
Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, etc., and submits the results back
to the central attention index server. The tracker performs the
search task on a continuous basis and the frequency of search can
be controlled by the indexing commands that get renewed
periodically.
Spivack ¶ 109 (emphasis added).
As stated above, we discern no meaningful difference between
Goeldi’s exposure to social media content continuously and the claimed
Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

8

invention’s exposure of continuous streams of social media content,
particularly in light of the Specification. See Specification ¶ 36. Here,
Spivack teaches continuously searching social networks that continuously
generate new data. See Spivack ¶ 109. Again, we discern no meaningful
difference between Spivack’s exposure to social media content/social
networks continuously and the claimed invention’s exposure of continuous
streams of social media content, particularly in light of the Specification.
See Specification ¶ 36.
Nonetheless, Appellant’s argument that “[t]here is no indication,
further, that Spivack’s indexing is based on an ‘entity-specific query’ as
claimed” is persuasive of Examiner error. Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis
added). Although Spivack teaches the claimed “search results for one or
more specified keywords” in an unstructured data stream, Spivack fails to
teach or disclose an entity-specific query that is continuously applied and
associated with the search results for keyword(s) as required in claim 1. See
Final Action 14–15 (citing Spivack ¶¶ 70, 71 107–09). We find this issue to
be dispositive and do not reach a conclusion in regard to Appellant’s other
arguments.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as, independent claims 9 and 17 commensurate in scope and
dependent claims 5–8, 13–16 and 18–20.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–9, 13–20 103 Goeldi, Spivack 1, 5–9, 13–20

Appeal 2020-003488
Application 14/189,863

9

REVERSED