Ex Parte 6778979 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 201595001430 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 95/001,430 09/08/2010 6778979 3454REX.747BS 1480 86636 7590 10/26/2015 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. 2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2015 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 ____________ GOOGLE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. XEROX CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant ____________ Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Requester filed a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 of the Decision by a panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the panel”) mailed February 3, 2014 (“Decision”) in the above-identified inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,979 B2 (“the ’979 patent”). In the Decision, the panel affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 1–20. The claims stand rejected over fourteen grounds of rejection. Decision 2. Although all 20 claims have been rejected under the different rejections, Patent Owner only Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 2 argued independent claims 1, 14, and 18 for six of the rejections, and argued in detail only with respect to claim 1. Id. Patent Owner contends that the panel’s Decision misapprehended or overlooked issues in three rejections: 1) anticipation by Wieser under 35 U.S.C. § 102; 2) obviousness in view of Black and HyPursuit under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and 3) obviousness in view of Black and Donaldson under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Req. Reh’g 2–3. We did not reach the rejection based on Black and Donaldson because all the claims rejected under it were already rejected over Black and HyPursuit. CLAIM 11 1. A method for automatically generating a query from selected document content, comprising: [1] defining an organized classification of document content with each class in the organized classification of document content having associated therewith a classification label; each classification label corresponding to a category of information in an information retrieval system; [2] automatically identifying a set of entities in the selected document content for searching additional information related thereto using the information retrieval system; [3] automatically categorizing the selected document content using the organized classification of document content for assigning the selected document content a classification label from the organized classification of content; and [4] automatically formulating the query to restrict a search at the information retrieval system for information concerning the set of entities to the category of information in the information retrieval system identified by the assigned classification label. 1 Numbered steps [1] to [4] have been added for reference. Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 3 WIESER Patent Owner contends that the panel erred in finding “the product clusters of Wieser to be labels within the scope of the claims, and therefore inherently found them to be labels in an organized classification of document content. (Decision, p. 12).” Req. Reh’g 2. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that in a classification system, “the system’s categories (i.e., classes) exist independent of any data to be categorized, and therefore enable classification of data into the existing categories/classes of the system.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner states that in Wieser’s system the products change in size, number and/or scope as more data is added, and thus, are not “classification labels” as that term is used in the claims. Id. at 3–4. On page 10 of the Decision, Wieser’s description of “clusters” of products in a database was determined to serve as “classification labels,” as recited in claim 1. The following disclosure from Weiser was cited for this description: After the vector generations, the document vector, or feature vector, must be compared with database vectors, or feature vectors. A naïve approach to product matching would be to compare the document vector to the vectors for every product in the database. This process becomes more burdensome as the number of products in the database grows. Fortunately, the database vectors are not smoothly distributed throughout the vector space, but rather, tend to “clump” together, leaving vast empty spaces between the clumps, or clusters as they are commonly known. . . . Then, when one wishes to find the products that match a given document vector, one need only compare the document to the products in the cluster whose bounding sphere contains the document vector (or the nearest spheres, if no sphere contains the document vector). (Wieser, p. 17, 15-28; emphases added.) As explained in the quoted passage, the “clusters” are the product “classification labels.” The clusters, or classification labels, are determined (step Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 4 [1] of claim 1) and then compared to the document vector content. Because Wieser teaches that the product classification labels are “match[ed]” to the document vectors, at least some of the document vectors must bear a classification label as in step [3] of the claim. Patent Owner attempts to rebut this disclosure in Wieser with testimony by Dr. V.S. Subrahmanian (Declaration dated June 7, 2011). Req. Reh’g 3. Dr. Subrahmanian testified: . . . the set of vectors for a particular set of documents “are not smoothly distributed throughout the vector space, but rather, tend to ‘clump’ together, leaving vast empty spaces between the clumps, or clusters as they are commonly known” ([Weiser] at 17, lines 19-21) Subrahmanian Decl. ¶ 35 (emphasis added). In fact, as quoted above from Weiser, the clumped “vectors” were a reference to “database vectors” not document vectors: Fortunately, the database vectors are not smoothly distributed throughout the vector space, but rather, tend to “clump” together, leaving vast empty spaces between the clumps, or clusters as they are commonly known. Wieser, p. 17, ll. 16–21 (emphases added). However, Dr. Subrahmanian characterized the clumped vectors as vectors “for a particular set of documents.” Because Dr. Subrahmanian’s opinion contains this factual error, his further opinion that Wieser does not describe “classification labels” is given little weight because it based on an apparent misreading of Wieser. In paragraph 43–44 of Dr. Subrahmanian’s declaration, he states that “data or documents are grouped together on an ad hoc basis using mathematical calculations involving the spheres” and that therefore “the definition of cluster spheres is mathematical,” making it “not possible to determine the subject matter Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 5 of the data or documents whose vectors fall within the boundaries of a given cluster sphere without actually examining those data or documents.” This testimony is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Wieser expressly refers to products in the description of clustering. Wieser, p. 17, ll. 15-28. Dr. Subrahmanian does not explain how this explicit reference to a “product,” as well as Wieser’s characterization of its process of matching product offers to documents a customer is reading (Decision 10) constitutes an incomprehensible cluster sphere. Thus, we find Patent Owner’s argument (Req. Reh’g 6–7) that that subject matter in a cluster described in only mathematical terms to be unsupported by the evidence and contrary to Wieser who expressly describes product categories. See, e.g., Wieser at p. 6, ll. 4–9 describing golf. Decision 10. We agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the claimed system requires a classification system that would indicate understandable labels indicative of the subject matter in a document or database. Req. Reh’g. 7. To the extent the Decision states or implies otherwise, we withdraw that reasoning and do not rely on it. The question is whether Wieser describes classification labels, which the evidence answers in the affirmative. Specifically, as quoted in the Decision, Wieser teaches: For example, if a visitor or customer of client 12 selects an article about BMW’s newest vehicle, the match server 14 of the present invention presents a buying opportunity to the customer, i.e., an attractively discounted book for “BMW Enthusiasts”. If the customer is reading an article about Tiger Woods, the match server 14 displays or presents items such as Nike golf balls or a book on the history of the US Open to the customer. It is appreciated that the intelligence engine 14 of the present invention understands the difference between Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 6 Tiger Woods, a tiger, and woods. Wieser, p. 6, ll. 4-11. Clearly, Wieser’s classifications labels constitute real-world meaning in order that they can match a document about Tiger Woods to a product offer about golf. Dr. Subrahmanian’s opinion to the contrary is unsupported by evidence, fails to address the entire disclosure in Wieser, and is based on an apparent misreading of Wieser. On page 8 of the Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner, in a footnote, refers to an alleged mis-description of the functionality of Wieser relied upon in the Decision. Patent Owner’s Request does not identify what step of the claimed method they are attempting to distinguish over Wieser. However, referring back to the Decision, it appears the Patent Owner intends to address Step [4] of the claimed method. We quote step [4] below: [4] automatically formulating the query to restrict a search at the information retrieval system for information concerning the set of entities to the category of information in the information retrieval system identified by the assigned classification label. Decision 3. In the Decision, the panel found that Wieser’s description of automatically forming an SQL query to search cluster IDs corresponded to step [4] of claim 1. Decision 11 (“Step [4]”). Patent Owner disputes this finding. Req. Reh’g. 8–9. Patent Owner states: By “always” matching multiple clusters to an input document vector (including clusters not containing the vector), Wieser’s system is not restricted to “the category,” and thus Wieser's disclosure does not meet the claimed automatically formulating the query limitation of the claims. Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 7 Id. at 9. In Step [4] of claim 1, the query is formulated to “restrict” the search relating to the “set of entities” to the category of information identified by the “classification label.” The term “entity” is defined in the ‘979 patent to mean “something recognized in a document . . . that can be in the form of an image, text, embedded data, HTML, etc.” (id. at col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 2). Decision 4. In other words, in simple terms, if “golf ball” is identified in the document classified as “golf”, then a query is formed to search the category of information classified as “golf.” Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Wieser on the basis that Wieser allegedly always searches multiple clusters, not a single one as required by step [4] of claim 1. The following disclosure from Wieser is pertinent to this issue: Then, when one wishes to find the products that match a given document vector, one need only compare the document to the products in the cluster whose bounding sphere contains the document vector (or the nearest spheres, if no sphere contains the document vector). Thus, the computation is reduced from comparing the document vector to all the product vectors to simply comparing the document vector to the center vectors for the spheres, followed by comparison to the product vectors for the products in the matching spheres. Wieser, p. 17, ll. 24–31 (emphasis added). In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the query context vector, is compared to the center vector of each cluster and the clusters with center vectors closest to the query context vector are selected. It is appreciated that these clusters IDs are then used to narrow the scope of products returned by the original metadata query as issued by the client 12. In other words, this narrowing qualification is added to the original metadata query to form an SQL query. Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 8 Id. at p. 18, ll. 16–23 (emphasis added). From this disclosure, it appears that Wieser identifies “clusters” which match the document vector, and then uses this information to form a further SQL query of the clusters, which is done automatically. However, this disclosure in Wieser does not exclude circumstances where only one cluster is identified. Wieser’s method is simply designed to be inclusive so as not miss contextually- related clusters, but does not exclude circumstances in which only one cluster is identified. This possibility appears to be disclosed in Wieser where it refers to “the step of comparing compares said feature vector to center vectors to determine at least one contextually related cluster.” Wieser, p. 30, ll. 24–26. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the panel erred in affirming the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10–14, and under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Wieser. BLACK AND HYPURSUIT In the obviousness rejection based on Black and HyPursuit, Black was cited for disclosing or suggesting step [3] of claim 1. The following is excerpted from the Decision: Step [3] of automatically categorizing the selected document content by assigning classification label is said by Examiner and Requester to be met by Black’s description of a hook (Request 104). Black teaches: The hook is the concept, primary subject matter or main topic for a body of text. The hook is used to define a query as narrowly as possible on a particular topic for a selected information source. To determine a “hook”, a content layer must exist for which a context can be determined. There must be a perceivable structure to the information source and each Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 9 content entry must have an associated context or place or places within the structure of the information source. (Black, col. 2, ll. 10-18.) In one of the examples, Black describes automatically generating a hook by extracting proper names from a document and then, based on frequencies and other context, identifying a proper name in the document to use as hook (Black, col. 2, l. 57 to col. 3, l. 24). The classification label assigned to the document in this case is the proper name. Decision 17. Patent Owner contends that “there is no suggestion in Black of identifying a hook based on a classification regime outside of the document alone. The entire discussion of Black addressing generation of the hook is based solely on examination of the document itself.” Req. Reh’g 11. This argument was addressed on page 19 of the Decision, including the suggestion to generate a hook based on predefined categories. The suggestion to use predefined categories does not have to come from Black alone. Req. Reh’g 12. The rejection is based on Black and HyPursuit, and, as explained in the Decision, Black’s “disclosure reasonably suggests using HyPursuit’s method of clustering content for the purpose of improving searching.” Decision 19. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized HyPursuit’s predefined categories in Black’s method. Id. In regard to the statement in the Decision cited in the Request for Rehearing that “Black meets the claimed requirement of ‘automatically formulating’ a search query,” it clear that the Decision was referring to the automation aspect of the claims, and not the entire limitation. Decision 20–21. Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 10 Patent Owner also contends that the Requester erred by arguing that Black’s query would be classified by HyPursuit, which is not what is required by the claim. Req. Reh’g 12. The disputed limitation is step [4] of claim 1 which recites “automatically formulating the query to restrict a search at the information retrieval system for information concerning the set of entities to the category of information in the information retrieval system identified by the assigned classification label.” The Decision very expressly identified support in HyPursuit for step [4], which we repeat here: HyPursuit describes automatically categorizing a document based on its content: The abstraction function for query routing, on the other hand, computes a manageable set of terms that are used for identifying portions of the information space relevant to particular queries. The abstraction function uses term and term frequency information in the children’s content labels to compute term weights. The abstraction function then selects the most heavily weighted terms for generating the content router’s content label. (HyPursuit, p. 185, col. 1; emphasis in original.) HyPursuit also describes restricting the search based on the assigned labels: HyPursuit uses query routing to support the search operations. Query routing uses the content labels stored in the content router to determine which of the child servers are likely to contain documents related to the user query. (HyPursuit, p. 186, col. 2.) Decision 18. Based on this disclosure, the Decision states that it would have been obvious to implement these strategies in Black to enhance “retrieval of only Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 11 relevant information” (Black, p. 180, col. 2) and “specificity of the information need” (id. at p. 181, col. 1). Decision 20. Patent Owner has not adequately addressed this explicit disclosure and reasoning in the Decision. For example, on pages 11–13 of the Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner focuses on Black without addressing the specific HyPursuit disclosure cited in the Decision. Consequently, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unsupported by the evidence of record. Patent Owner also argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion of how the query of Black could generated with a hook identified in accordance with the classification system of HyPursuit.” Req. Reh’g 14. As already discussed, Black teaches automation. Dec. 17–19. Patent Owner has not adequately explained or provided evidence to the contrary that Black would have enabled the skilled worker to implement HyPursuit’s query routing procedure. REHEARING DENIED Appeal 2014-000031 Reexamination Control 95/001,430 Patent 6,778,979 B2 12 Patent Owner: BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1020 Alexandria, VA 22314 Third Party Requester: QUINN EMANUAL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation