Ex Parte Angaluri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2019

14827581 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/827,581 08/17/2015 Srihari V. Angaluri
46429 7590 01/25/2019
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RPS920140053US2 1701
EXAMINER
HOANG, HAU HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIHARI V. ANGALURI, GARY D. CUDAK,
CHRISTOPHER J. HARDEE,
LUKE D. REMIS, and ADAM ROBERTS
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827,581 1,2
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11, which constitute the only claims
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identified International Business Machines, Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The current Application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent
Application No. 14/324,190, in which an appeal (Appeal 2018-005209) has
been filed. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to modifying and ranking searches with actions
based on prior search results and actions. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 1, 23, and 24.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
( emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
using at least one processor and memory for:
determining a first action input by a user of the
computing device;
determining a second action associated with web
content, wherein the second action comprises a plurality of
action types;
receiving user input identifying search criteria;
presenting a biased list of search parameters based
at least in part on an application type of a previously
executed application;
determining whether the search criteria is associated
with the web content;
in response to determining that the search criteria is
associated with the web content, prioritizing at least one of
the plurality of action types over another of the at least one
of the plurality of action types;
presenting recommended search results based on the
prioritized plurality of action type; and determining the
recommended search results based on the identified search
criteria.
App. Br 10 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
THE REJECTIONS 3
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13, 15-19, and 21 of
U.S. Pub No. 2016/0004698. Final Act. 5.
Claim 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0310922 Al; pub. December 6,
2012) ("Johnson") in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0173520 Al; pub. July 5,
2012) ("Wu"). Final Act. 5-12.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Johnson, Wu, and Andersson et al. (US 2013/0066853 Al; pub. March 14,
2013) ("Andersson"). Final Act. 13-16.
ANALYSIS
The double patenting rejection
In the double patenting rejection, the Examiner finds that, although
the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 of the current application are
3 The 35 U.S.C § 112 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 is withdrawn.
See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
system claims that perform the same steps that are described in claims 11-
13, 15-19, and 21 ofUS. Pub. No. 2016/0004698 Al. 4 Final Act. 5.
We note that Appellants present no rebuttal in the Appeal Brief or
Reply Brief; nor do we find evidence that a terminal disclaimer was filed.
Therefore, we proforma sustain the double patenting rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11.
The 35 US.C. § 103 Rejections
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding Wu teaches the
claim 1 limitation "presenting a biased list of search parameters based at
least in part on an application type of a previously executed application."
App. Br. 6-8. Appellants argue Wu teaches ranking identified applications,
not presenting a biased list of search parameters, and Wu does not teach
such a list based at least in part "on an application type of a previously
executed application." Id. at 6 (emphasis added). According to Appellants:
Wu states that "the method 200 may determine that the ORBITZ
application should be ranked higher than the FLIGHTST ATS
application." (Wu at para. [0034 ]). That is, Wu purports to suggest
raking [sic] one travel application higher than another travel
application. In another example, Wu describes ranking applications
(not presenting a biased list of search parameters) as follows: "[T]he
method 200 may rank applications based on predetermined
application quality, authoritativeness, or various other metadata
parameters associated with the applications." (Wu at para. [0034]).
As is evident from these passages, Wu suggests ranking applications,
not presenting a biased list of search parameters as claimed.
Therefore, Wu fails to suggest presenting a biased list of search
parameters, much less presenting a biased list of search parameters
based on an application type of a previously executed application.
4 Application US 14/324, 190, filed July 6, 2014, is the application for
Angaluri et al., US 2016/0004698 Al; pub. Jan. 7, 2016.
4
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
Id. at 7.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Johnson
and Wu teaches the limitations of independent claim 1, and relies on Wu for
teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5-9. In the Answer, the
Examiner refers to the Specification's description of search parameter 504 as
including search queries, search strings, search terms or search phrases.
Ans. 3--4 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 23, 24, and Fig. 5). The Examiner finds Wu
discloses search string "flight bas to lax" is entered and the terms "flight"
"to," "bas," "lax" of the search string are extracted. Id. at 4 (citing Wu ,r 26).
Referring to Wu, the Examiner finds:
The system identifies and ranks at least two applications: ORBIT and
FLIGHTSTATS based on the search string. The type of each
identified application is different. ORBIT application is for "purchase
plane tickets" and FLIGHTSTATS is for "check flight
arrival/departures times" in [0033] and [0034]. Also, the ORBIT
application is ranked higher than the FLIGHTSTATS because the
ORBIT application is utilized, used, or executed more frequently than
the FLIGHTST ATS application. After identifying and ranking, the
applications are displayed as in figure 4.
Here, search terms or search parameters "bos" and "lax" are presented
in field From and field To in ORBIT application in fig. 4.
Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner then finds Wu teaches the disputed limitation because
"[ c ]learly, search parameters or search terms 'bos' and 'lax' are presented
based on an application type of a previously executed application (i.e.,
ORBIT application is a type of application for purchasing plane ticket and
FLIGHTST AT application is a type of application for checking light
5
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
arrival/departure time ... [)]," and "[b ]oth applications are ranked based on
its previously used or executed[]." Id. at 5.
The Examiner additionally refers to Wu, paragraphs 26, 33, 34, and
Figure 4, to show how the Wu system operates. Id. at 5-7.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Wu's mapping to applications is
done without regard to whether the application was previously executed.
Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue the Specification describes "[ w ]ith
continued reference to FIG. 5, the biased list of presented search parameters
504 may also be determined based on previously executed applications on
the computing device 102." Id. at 3 (citing Spec. ,r 24). Appellants
reference the examples set forth in the Specification and argue:
Based on these passages, it is clear that the present
application describes presenting the biased list of
search parameters based on a type of a previously
executed application that the user executed on the
user's device "a few minutes prior to conducting a
search." To interpret the claims any broader, such as
to encompass presenting a biased list of search
parameters based on a rank/popularity of
applications, is unreasonable and unsupported by the
present application.
Id. at 4 (citing Spec. ,r 24).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings regarding the combination of Johnson and Wu
and claim interpretation of claim 1 's disputed limitation. Appellants present
no persuasive arguments the Examiner's findings and claim interpretation
are unreasonable, overbroad, or inconsistent with the Specification. Claim
terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in
6
Appeal2018-005221
Application 14/827 ,581
the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our reviewing
court states that "the words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) ( en bane) ( citations omitted).
Here, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a previously executed
application" includes the ranking of ORBIT and FLIGHTS TATS, which is
based on using (executing) the applications. See Wu, ,r,r 33, 34. We note
the claim recites "a previously executed application," not "a previously
executed application on the user's computer device a few minutes prior to
conducting a search."
In view of the above, we sustain the rejections of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 11 as these claims are not argued separately.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11
for obviousness-type double patenting.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7