Ex Parte Angaluri et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2019

14324190 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/324,190 07/06/2014 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.
RPS920140053US 1 6104
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
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190 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 11-13, 15-19, and 21, which constitute the only
claims pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business Machines
Inc. by Appellants. App. Br. 2.
2 The current Application is a parent application of U.S. Patent Application
No. 14/827,581, in which an appeal (Appeal 2018-005221) has been filed.
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to modifying and ranking searches with actions
based on prior search results and actions. See Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 1, 23, 24.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
( emphasis added):
11. A system comprising:
a computing device comprising at least one processor and
memory, the computing device configured to:
determine a first action input by a user of the computing
device;
determine a second action associated with web content,
wherein the second action comprises a plurality of action types;
receive user input identifying search criteria;
present a biased list of search parameters based at least
in part on an application type of a previously executed
application;
determine whether the search criteria is associated with
the web content; and
in response to determining that the search criteria is
associated with the web content,
prioritize at least one of the plurality of action
types over another of the at least one of the plurality of
action types, and
present recommended search results based on the
prioritized plurality of action types,
wherein the computing device is further configured to
determine the recommended search results based on the
identified search criteria.
App. Br 10 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190
THE REJECTIONS 3
Claim 11-13 and 15-19 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. 4--12.
Claim 21 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. 12-15.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding Wu teaches the
claim 11 limitation "present a biased list of search parameters based at least
in part on an application type of a previously executed application." App.
Br. 6-7. Appellants argue Wu teaches ranking identified applications, not
presenting a biased list of search parameters, and does not teach such a list
based at least in part on an application type of a previously executed
application. Id. 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]).
3 The 35 U.S.C § 112 rejection of claims 11-13, 15-19, and 21 is
withdrawn. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190
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.
Id. at 7.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Johnson
and Wu teaches the limitations of independent claim 11, and relies on Wu
for teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4--8. 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
FLIGHTST ATS 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 FLIGHTSTATS 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.,
4
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190
ORBIT application is a type of application for purchasing plane ticket and
FLIGHTSTAT application is a type of application for checking light
arrival/departure time" and "[b ]oth applications are ranked based on its
previously used or executed)." Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted).
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) (emphasis omitted).
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 11 '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
5
Appeal2018-005209
Application 14/324, 190
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in 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) of 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 rejection of claim 11, and
dependent claims 12, 13, 15-19, and 21 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 11-13, 15-19,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6