Anna Stavrianou et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2019

13400263 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2019)

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.
13/400,263 02/20/2012 Anna Stavrianou 20111290USNP-
XER2815US01
1063
62095 7590 09/16/2019
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNA STAVRIANOU and CAROLINE BRUN
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263
Technology Center 2100
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Anna Stavrianou et al.,
appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–20, which are
all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claim 2. Final
Act. 1. 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) (2015). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Xerox Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
The claims are directed to a system and method for providing
recommendations based on information extracted from reviewers’
comments. Title. In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and
claimed invention “relate[] to information extraction . . . [with] particular
application in connection with an apparatus and method for generating
recommendations for new items based on opinions of other items.” Spec.
¶ 1.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (formatting added, and emphases added to contested prior-
art limitations):
1. A method for generating recommendations
comprising:
receiving a user’s review of an item which includes a
textual comment;
[L1] applying a set of extraction patterns to the textual
comment, each of the extraction patterns being configured to
identify a deficient feature of the item based on a finding of a
specified syntactic relation between words of the textual
comment;
providing for, when a deficient feature is identified:

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 15, 2016); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 13, 2017); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 15, 2017); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Dec. 16, 2015); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Feb. 20, 2012).
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

3
[L2] identifying an attribute of each of a
plurality of features for the reviewed item, the
plurality of features including the identified
deficient feature;
comparing the identified attributes of the
reviewed item with stored attributes for the
plurality of features for other items in a set of
items to identify an improved item from the set of
items which has an attribute for the deficient
feature which is determined to be an improvement
over the attribute of the deficient feature for the
reviewed item; and
[L3] generating a recommendation for the
identified improved item, wherein the identifying
of the deficient feature, identifying of attributes,
comparing the identified attributes, and generating
the recommendation are performed with a
computer processor.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the item
comprises a non-transitory product.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal: The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Heber US 2006/0253345 A1 Nov. 9, 2006
Salvetti et al. (“Salvetti”) US 8,671,098 B2 Mar. 11, 2014
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Heber and Salvetti. Final
Act. 5.

Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

4
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 6–14) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 14 on the basis of representative claim 1;
we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 15–19 on the
basis of representative claim 15; we decide the appeal of the obviousness
rejection of separately argued claims 12 and 20, infra.3
ISSUES
Appellant argues (App. Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 6–15) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Heber and Salvetti is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issues:
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests a method for generating recommendations that includes,
inter alia, the limitations of:
[L1] applying a set of extraction patterns to the textual
comment, each of the extraction patterns being configured to
identify a deficient feature of the item based on a finding of a
specified syntactic relation between words of the textual
comment;
providing for, when a deficient feature is identified:

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

5
[L2] identifying an attribute of each of a plurality of
features for the reviewed item, the plurality of features
including the identified deficient feature; [and]
[L3] generating a recommendation for the identified
improved item,
as recited in claim 1?
(b) Did the Examiner err by not providing a reason to combine Heber
and Salvetti because, as asserted by Appellant (App. Br. 10), “[t]here is no
suggestion of how using Salvetti’s natural language technology in Heber
would identify a deficient feature of Heber’s website”?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

6
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1
and 3–20 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein
and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claims 1 and 12 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

7
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 14
(a) All Limitations are Taught or Suggested
L1 — Applying Extraction Patterns to Identify a Deficient Feature
The Examiner finds that Heber teaches identifying a deficient feature
of an item based upon a scoring program used to analyze a website to
identify deficient areas of the website (Final Act. 5 (citing Heber ¶¶ 28, 29,
53)), and relies upon Salvetti as teaching or suggesting receiving an item
review that includes textual comments, and then applying a set of extraction
patterns thereto. Final Act. 6 (citing Salvetti 6:15–64). The Examiner
provides motivation to combine the references, as discussed further, infra.
See id.
Appellant responds:
Heber does not identify a deficient feature of the website
based on a finding of a specified syntactic relation between
words of a textual comment in a user’s review of the website.
Rather Heber considers the website, not a review of it. For
example, Heber compares the scoring data of the presently
analyzed website with the database of previously scored
website to identify where the website can be improved. Thus
Heber’s analysis is not based on a review.
App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further alleges, “Heber does not
consider the text content itself as a feature, just the size and location on the
page. Thus Heber analyzes quite different features from those presently
claimed.” App. Br. 8. “Even assuming that Salvetti discloses receiving a
user’s review, the purpose to which the reviews are put does not suggest the
claimed method. Salvetti does not consider the review of a user, but a set of
different opinions, which are combined. Thus Salvetti’s combined review
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

8
would not allow the identification of an item to recommend to a specific
user.” Id.
With respect to the Examiner’s reliance upon Salvetti, Appellant
contends, “the aim of Salvetti is to generate a lively composite review of an
item, not to identify deficient features or to improve the item . . . [and t]here
is no suggestion in either Heber or Salvetti that Heber’s website would be
improved by analysis of text of reviews of the website. Nor is there any
suggestion of there being such reviews to analyze.” App. Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for several reasons.
First, Appellant argues the references separately, when the rejection is based
upon what the combination of Heber and Salvetti would have suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Second, we find Heber’s teaching of a comparison of the scoring data
of the presently analyzed website with the database of a previously scored
website to identify where the website can be improved at least suggests that
a review of an item, e.g., a website, was previously conducted, thereby
providing a previous score. Accordingly, we find that Heber teaches or at
least suggests identifying a deficient feature of an item, e.g., a website, and,
we find that Salvetti teaches or suggests receiving an item review that
includes textual comments, whether from one reviewer/user or multiple
users represented by a combined review, and then applying a set of
extraction patterns to the received comments. See App. Br. 8–9.4

4 Appellant arguably admits that Salvetti teaches or suggests using a set of
extraction patterns to analyze textual comments:
Representative phrases from reviews are extracted and
aggregated into coherent sentences to create the composite
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

9
L2 — Identifying an Attribute Including an Identified Deficient Feature
Appellant argues “since Heber does not distinguish deficient features
from text comments, there is no suggestion of providing for identifying an
attribute of that feature when a deficient feature is identified.” App. Br. 11.
We disagree with Appellant and agree with the Examiner that:
[Heber’s s]coring program [is] arranged to control the computer
system to analyze a website to produce a score for that website
. . . as well as a website improvement, which receives the code
of the website and identifies deficient areas of the website . . .
[and which is i]dentified using the content identification data
and [which] applies the analysis criteria and scoring method . . .
to arrive at a score for each content element. The individual
scores can then be combined as described previously to produce
a total score for the website. The individual score and the
overall score are stored in the scoring data . . . . Each of score
or criteria is an attribute for the reviewed item. Therefore,
Heber discloses this limitation.
Ans. 5 (citing Heber ¶¶ 53, 55) (emphasis added).

review. Semantic analysis using linguistic processing is used to
produce a composite review for an item from a set of reviews
for that item. Comments about aspects of a product containing
evaluative language (e.g., sentiment-bearing terms with a
positive or negative connotation) are automatically identified in
different reviews written by different reviewers, using natural
language methods. Templates or full-scale natural language
generation techniques are used to assemble these comments
into a composite review. Product reviews are analyzed using
natural language technology to identify and extract sentiment-
bearing phrases and grammatically well-formed linguistic
phrases (Adj-Noun, Verb-Adj, Verb-Adv, etc.). The most lively
and interesting phrasings are selected, whether an evaluation or
ranking of comments is done or not.
App. Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

10
We agree that Heber’s score or criteria teaches or at least suggests the
recited “attribute” for the review item.
L3 —Generating a Recommendation for the Identified Improved Item
Appellant argues Heber “does not generate a recommendation for an
identified improved item . . . [but instead merely] suggests improvements to
the website itself, not a recommendation for a different item.” App. Br. 11
(citing Heber ¶ 67). We disagree.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument because, as the Examiner
found under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Heber discloses
identifying a deficient feature, admittedly of a website, and Salvetti, used in
combination with Heber, produces a composite review of an item from
textual reviews submitted regarding that item. Ans. 3. Thus, under the
Examiner’s claim construction, the recited “item” broadly but reasonably
reads on Heber’s website. With respect to the recited “generating” step, the
Examiner further finds, “[i]mprovements to the deficient areas are then
suggested.” Ans. 6 (citing Heber ¶ 53); and see Heber ¶ 68 (discussing a
“website improvement program” run on computer 32 by which “the program
pinpoints the qualities and attributes of the content [of scored websites] that
make them superior or more effective.”).
Accordingly, we find Heber’s improving of a website teaches or at
least suggests the recited “generating a recommendation.”
(b) Rationale to Combine is Proper
Appellant alleges “[t]here is no suggestion of how using Salvetti’s
natural language technology in Heber would identify a deficient feature of
Heber’s website.” App. Br. 10. Further, “[t]here is no suggestion that the
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

11
scoring criteria used by Salvetti for selecting the lively etc. phrases to be
used in the composite review would be useful to ‘improve the quality server
of rating and recommendations,’ as the Examiner suggests. Rather, Salvetti
uses the scoring criteria for a highly selective process for selecting the
phrases chosen.” App. Br. 10–11 (citing Salvetti 17:25–29).
The Examiner finds, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the feature
as disclose in Salvetti into the teachings of Heber in order to improve the
quality of services.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains “[i]n this case,
Heber and Salvetti are using a scoring module to rate the item and Salvetti
also using a textual comments for the item/product. It would have been
obvious to combine Salvetti into the teaching of Heber to improve the
quality server of rating and recommendations.” Ans. 4.
Appellant does not provide any evidence as to how a person with skill
in the art would understand either Heber (directed to a system and method
for analyzing, generating suggestions for, and improving websites) or
Salvetti (directed to automatic generation of digital composite product
reviews), or how their combination would operate.
More specifically, Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner’s proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor has Appellant provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

12
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese & Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Because the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,”
unrebutted by Appellant, we agree with the Examiner’s legal conclusion of
obviousness. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.5
Claim 12
The Examiner finds that Heber discloses “a computer readable storage
medium 38, such as hard disk drive . . . [and] optical disks” (Heber ¶ 53),
and “the computer readable medium 38 also stores several sets of data for
use by the computer programs to provide the present embodiment.” Ans. 6
(citing Heber ¶ 54). Appellant argues, “the website being reviewed is not a
non-transitory product. . . . Computer code is clearly not a non-transitory
product.” App. Br. 11.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Heber
and Salvetti teaches or suggests the “the item comprises a non-transitory
product” because a person with ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that hard disk drives or optical disks are non-transitory media.
Claims 15–19
With respect to independent system claim 15, Appellant “reiterates the
applicable arguments made with respect to claim 1.” Different from claim 1,
however, Appellant additionally argues the cited prior art combination is

5 “Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d
769, 773 (CCPA 1964)).
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

13
deficient because there is no teaching or suggestion of “a mapping
component configured to query an associated database with attributes of the
reviewed item for identifying improved items.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner responds by finding:
Heber discloses “creating a score and generating
recommendations for improving the health, effectiveness and
profitability of the website.[”] The recommendations are
generated based on the website’s current set of quality/
profitability scores as well as the scores of other sites. These
recommendations can be generated manually though human
intervention such as consultant identifying problem areas
based on the website’s scores and suggesting changes to be
implemented . . . . Also provided is a database of scored
websites ... this has advantages in that it allows for
straightforward comparison of the scoring data of the presently
analyzed website with the database of previously scored
websites to identify where the present website can be
improve[d] . . . . Heber’s system is using website’s scores to
identify the deficient feature of the website/item. Therefore,
Heber discloses this limitation.
Ans. 6–7 (citing Heber ¶¶ 50, 56).
As cited in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of the
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 27)), Appellant’s Specification
describes the claimed “mapping component” in functional terms, and
indicates the functions are carried out by a processor executing software
code stored in memory. See Spec. ¶ 27 (“Main memory 120 stores . . . a
mapping component 142 for generating the mapping 16, and . . . [e]ach of
the components 12, 140, 142, 144 may be software components
implemented by computer processor 124”); and see Spec. ¶ 89 (“The
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

14
mapping component 142 is configured to retrieve products of the same
general features.”).
We agree with the Examiner’s reading of the claim limitation on the
cited prior art because the “mapping component” is claimed in functional
terms, and because Appellant’s Specification indicates these functions are
carried out by a processor executing software code. See Heber Fig. 3, and
¶¶ 67–68 (wherein, inter alia, computer 32 analyzes score data using scoring
program 384).
Claim 20
With respect to independent system claim 20, Appellant proffers what
might appear to be a separate argument for patentability, but which, instead,
essentially recasts arguments made with respect to independent claim 1 in
connection with the combination of Heber with Salvetti allegedly not
teaching or suggesting “applying extraction patterns to a textual comment.”
App. Br. 13. Similar to claim 1, Appellant further argues “[t]here would
have been no reason to combine Heber with Salvetti.” App. Br. 14.
For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt the Examiner’s
factual findings and legal conclusions herein as our own. See Final
Act. 14–15; Ans. 9–10.
Summary
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claims 1, 12, 15,
Appeal 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

15
and 20, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 3–20. See Claim Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–21) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position
in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION6
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–20.

6 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner’s attention to
the pending claims to determine compliance with the patent eligibility
guidelines under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in the Director’s revised
guidance as published in the Federal Register. See 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
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 2017-009901
Application 13/400,263

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 and 3–20 § 103(a)
Heber, Salvetti
1 and 3–20
FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED