Wook Chung et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2021

2020006447 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
12/895,360 09/30/2010 Wook Jin Chung 320723-US-NP (M15.073) 7648
148708 7590 12/27/2021
Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2021 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):
microsoft@bmtpatent.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOOK JIN CHUNG, MICHAEL JOSEPH PAPALE,
SERGIO MARIO DIAZ-CUELLAR,
COLIN CLAYTON TIDD,
CHAD STEVEN ESTES, and
JORDAN MARCHESE

Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
Technology Center 2100

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1–3, 6–7, 9–17, 19, 22, and 23. Claim
4 is also pending and is objected to. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to techniques for evaluating a query against a
content set comprising various content items. Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of evaluating queries comprising at least one
token against at least one content set respectively comprising
content items respectively having at least one identifier, the
method comprising:
for each of a plurality of the content items, indexing the
content item in the content index by storing a plurality of
identifiers associated with the content item in the content index,
and by storing an identifier weight in the content index in
association with each of the plurality of identifiers, the identifier
weight associated with a given identifier and a given content item
representing a likelihood that the given identifier would be used
in a search for the given content item; and
fulfilling a query by:
identifying candidate content items indexed in the
content index by matching one or more tokens of the query
to one or more identifiers associated with each candidate
content item in the content index;
for each respective candidate content item,
calculating a rank score based on the stored identifier
weight associated with the one or more respective
identifiers matching the one or more tokens of the query;
and
presenting the candidate content items sorted
according to the rank scores.

Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Katariya et al.
(“Katariya”)
US 6,473,753 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
Dagtas et al. (“Dagtas”) US 2003/0093260 A1 May 15, 2003
Kishimoto US 2003/0131538 A1 July 17, 2003
Judd et al. (“Judd”) US 2004/0039734 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Carol et al. (“Carol”) US 2005/0289108 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Goodman et al.
(“Goodman”)
US 2006/0218115 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Bitan et al. (“Bitan”) US 2007/0043723 A1 Feb. 22, 2007
Oliver et al. (“Oliver”) US 2012/0084300 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 16, 19, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Carol, Dagtas,
and Goodman. Final Act. 2–7.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Carol, Dagtas, Goodman, and Oliver. Final Act. 8.
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Carol, Dagtas, Goodman, and Bitan. Final Act. 8–
10.
Claims 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Carol, Dagtas, Goodman, and Judd. Final Act. 10–
13.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Carol, Dagtas, Goodman, and Katariya. Final Act.
13–14.

Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
4
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative
of claims 1–3, 6–7, 9–17, 19, 22, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2013); see also Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner found, inter alia, that Goodman teaches determining
the weight of text (identifiers) in a document (content item) most likely to be
used in a query. Ans. 4 (citing Goodman Abstract, ¶ 8). The Examiner found
that Goodman teaches that the queries involving text from within the subject
line of an email are given more weight than those same terms in the body of
the email. Id. The Examiner also found that Goodman teaches “a weight that
is specific and associated with the identifier, as being related to the specific
term, and specific content item as being related to emails with subject lines.”
Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because the combination of
Carol, Dagtas, and Goodman does not teach or suggest the limitation
for each of a plurality of the content items, indexing the content
item in a content index by storing a plurality of identifiers
associated with the content item in the content index, and by
storing an identifier weight in the content index in association
with each of the plurality of identifiers, wherein the identifier
weight associated with a given identifier and a given content
item represents a likelihood that the given identifier would be
used in a search for the given content item,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues that “the
weight described in Goodman is document field-specific (e.g., email subject
text may be provided greater weight than email body text),” and not
“identifier (e.g., ‘Joe’)-specific and is not content item (e.g., contact card)-
specific.” Id. at 8.
Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
5
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s
argument that Goodman teaches storing only field-specific weightings, as
opposed to identifier-specific weightings is not persuasive in light of
Goodman’s teaching that the text within a field is weighted, not the field
itself. See Ans. 4 (citing Goodman ¶ 8). Claim 1 requires “storing an
identifier weight in the content index in association with each of the plurality
of identifiers.” The claim further recites “the identifier weight associated
with a given identifier and a given content item representing a likelihood
that the given identifier would be used in a search for the given content
item,” but provides no details regarding how the likelihood that a given
identifier would be used in a search is determined. Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation as
broad enough to include taking an identifier’s field position into
consideration when determining the likelihood, as taught in Goodman, is
overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Carol, Dagtas, and Goodman teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 6–7, 9–17, 19, 22, and 23,
grouped therewith.2

2 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the
Examiner to consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the Board
is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference
should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
Appeal 2020-006447
Application 12/895,360
6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–7, 9–17,
19, 22, and 23.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7,
10–12, 16,
19, 22
103(a) Carol, Dagtas,
Goodman
1, 2, 6, 7,
10–12, 16,
19, 22

3 103(a) Carol, Dagtas,
Goodman, Oliver
3
9, 17 103(a) Carol, Dagtas,
Goodman, Bitan
9, 17
13–15 103(a) Carol, Dagtas,
Goodman, Judd
13–15
23 103(a) Carol, Dagtas,
Goodman, Katariya
23
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–7,
9–17, 19,
22, 23

RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED