Aravind Musuluri

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 2020

2020000135 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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. 14/691,312 04/20/2015 Aravind Musuluri MU-SE-DF 5069 15889 7590 11/03/2020 Aravind Musuluri 15511 Tuckerton Rd Apt 1324 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER BROWN, SHEREE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2020 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): amusuluri@teemingmind.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARAVIND MUSULURI Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 Technology Center 3600 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, 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 to reject claims 9 and 11–13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Appeal Brief does not identify the real party in interest. 2 Claims 1–8 and 10 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of displaying the results of a search operation. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 9, reproduced below with emphasis and formatting added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 9. A method executable on a computing device comprising a processor, memory and a storage unit to display results of a search operation on at least one data source comprising document, said method comprising: (a) Accepting a search query comprising keyword(s) from a user; (b) Generating search results by identifying documents comprising the keyword(s) in response to the search query; (c) Constructing a search result page comprising the identified search results wherein the search result comprises of a search extract and a title; (d) For each search result, identifying a display context comprising of width and/or height of the area allocated to the search result on the search result page; (e) Determining presentation semantics of the search extract and/ or title of the search result to fit in the allocated width and/or height of the search result; (f) Applying the presentation semantics to the search extract and/or title of the search result on the search result page; (g) Returning the search result page comprising the search results. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 3 Name Reference Date Wen US 2005/0028077 A1 Feb. 3, 2005 Stamm US 2013/0346396 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 REJECTIONS I. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. II. Claims 9 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stamm and Wen. OPINION Rejection I—Indefiniteness The Examiner determines that the step of “determining presentation semantics of the search extract” renders claim 9 indefinite because “[i]t is unclear . . . how the determination step is being executed.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that paragraphs 10 and 30 of the Specification3 explain that examples of presentation semantics include font size, font type, and combinations thereof, and in one disclosed example, a font size is progressively reduced and compared with a space allocated for placement of an extract. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant further argues that paragraph 46 describes determining a font size based on fonts’ scaling properties. Id. at 5. In reply, the Examiner takes the position that the teachings in the cited paragraphs of the Specification are not recited in claim 9, and, therefore, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Ans. 2–3. 3 Appellant appears to be referring to the paragraph numbering in the Patent Application Publication corresponding to the Application on Appeal (U.S. 2016/0019269 A1, published January 1, 2016) rather than the Specification as originally filed. We refer to the paragraph numbering in the originally filed Specification. Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 4 Appellant has the better argument because step (e) of claim 9 broadly recites the step of determining presentation semantics of a search result to fit in an allocated width and/or height of the search result, and the Specification provides two examples of the related step of altering one type of presentation semantic (font size). See Spec. ¶¶ 30, 46. When read in context with steps (d), (f), and (g), and in light of paragraphs 10, 30, and 46 of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that step (e) of claim 9 merely requires deciding upon presentation semantics (for example, font sizes) that allow the “search extract and/or title of the search result” to fit in the space allocated for it on the search result page. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as indefinite. Rejection II—Stamm and Wen The Examiner finds that Stamm discloses a method of performing a search operation, but relies on Wen to disclose both of steps (d) and (e) of claim 9. See Final Act. 5–7 (citing Wen ¶¶ 6, 43–44, 91, Figs. 5a–5f). The Examiner relies on both Stamm and Wen to disclose step (f) of claim 9. Id. at 7 (citing Wen ¶ 6; Stamm ¶ 40, Fig. 3C). Appellant argues that Wen discloses determining details of “semantic content,” and semantic content is different from the “presentation semantics” recited in steps (e) and (f) of claim 9. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Specifically, Appellant asserts, “presentation semantics of the present disclosure specify how text is to be displayed whereas [s]emantic content of Wen refers to actual text in a document.” Id. at 7. In a related argument, Appellant Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 5 contends Wen does not teach determining “what ought to be the width and height to fit in the available display.” Id. at 8–9. In response, the Examiner finds that Wen discloses identifying portions of semantic content, and this meets the requirements in claim 9 relating to presentations semantics, including step (f). See Ans. 6 (citing Wen ¶ 6). The Examiner reiterates that the process by which step (e) of claim 9 is performed is unclear and then states “as best as the examiner can ascertain, the examiner maintains Wen’s teaching of ‘one or more portions of semantic content of a document are identified’ in paragraph 0006 correlates to the Appellant's claim language.” Id. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Stamm and Wen. Claim 9, step (f), requires “[a]pplying the presentation semantics to the search extract and/or title of the search result on the search result page.” In light of the Specification and the other steps recited in claim 9, we understand this step to require altering presentation semantics of results (extract and/or title) that are to be displayed. See Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9, 30. These alterations are based on the outcome of step (e) in claim 9, which determines presentation semantics that allow the search extract and/or title to fit in the allocated width and/or height of an area defined in step (d). Therefore, steps (d) through (f) relate to how a search extract and/or title is displayed on a search result page (the page that is created by the method of claim 9). This may be how Stamm discloses search results to be presented, as illustrated therein, but not described.4 See Stamm Fig. 3C, elements 324, 326. In contrast, the Examiner’s findings 4 The Examiner does not make such a finding. See Final Act. 5–7. Appeal 2020-000135 Application 14/691,312 6 regarding “semantic content” relate to parameters of materials that appear on webpages that are searched in Wen, i.e. materials that are searched, as opposed to materials to be displayed. In other words, the Examiner erred in equating semantic content as disclosed by Wen with presentation semantics as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, absent any disclosure of steps (d) through (f) of claim 9, which amount to formatting a search extract and/or title for a desired display on a search result page, we are not persuaded by the Examiner that the proposed combination of the methods taught by Stamm and Wen meets all the requirements of claim 9. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 11–13 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Stamm and Wen. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9 112(b) Indefiniteness 9 9, 11–13 103 Stamm, Wen 9, 11–13 Overall Outcome 9, 11–13 REVERSED