Ex Parte Annau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 2017

13873393 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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. 13/873,393 04/30/2013 Thomas M. ANNAU AUS1P013C/AUS920155002US4 5687 126909 7590 06/14/2017 Zilka-Kotab, PC - Austin 1155 N ISt. Street, Suite 105 San Jose, CA 95172 EXAMINER LIN, ALLEN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2017 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): zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS M. ANNAU, GREGORY B. LINDAHL, SAMUEL MAKONNEN, MICHAEL MARKSON, KEITH PETERS, ROBERT MICHAEL SALIBA, AL SARY, RICH SKRENTA, DAN SWARTZ, ROBERT N. TRUEL, and TIMOTHY WALTERS Appeal 2016-007107 Application 13/873,393 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants2 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 11, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 30, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 10, 2016) and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 27, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-007107 Application 13/873,393 INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to generating an alternative search query including a search operator associated with at least one keyword detected from a user’s search query. Spec. 131; Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1. 1. A search engine system, comprising: a slashtag server in communication with a network and a web server, the slashtag server configured to, receive a search query from a user via the network; detect at least a search operator filter in the search query, the search operator filter being associated with a category of content from a social network site; based on an internet search using the category of content, generate an alternate search query; analyze search results and edit the alternate search query based on the analysis; send the web server the edited alternate search query; and the web server configured to, in response to receiving the edited alternate search query, search the network and generate a first search result; and cause display of the first search result in a web browser. 2 Appeal 2016-007107 Application 13/873,393 REFERENCES Bailey et al. Lunt et al. Elvekrog et al. US 2006/0230005 Al Oct. 12, 2006 US 7,788,260 B2 Aug. 31, 2010 US 2011/0153414 Al June 23, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1—3 and 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey and Lunt. Final Act. 3—8. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey, Lunt, and Elvekrog. Final Act. 8—10. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bailey and Lunt teaches or suggests a slashtag server in communication with a network and a web server, the slashtag server configured to, receive a search query from a user via the network; detect at least a search operator filter in the search query, the search operator filter being associated with a category of content from a social network site as recited in claim 1, and similarly required by claim 6? The issue presented with respect to claim 1 is dispositive. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2—10. See App. Br. 6—12; see also Reply Br. 2—10. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Claim 1 recites “the slashtag server configured to, receive a search query from a user via the network; detect at least a search operator filter in the search query, the search operator filter being associated with a category of content from a social network site. . ..” App. Br. 14. Appellants argue ISSUE ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2016-007107 Application 13/873,393 that the combination of Bailey and Lunt fails to teach detecting a search operator filter in the search query. App. Br. 8, 11—12. Specifically, Appellants argue that Bailey’s revision server receives and modifies queries, but does not detect a search operator filter in a query. Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Bailey discloses a system that receives a search query and provides the query to a revision server for revision, where the revised query is used for the search. Ans. 3; Bailey 29, 30. Further, the Examiner finds that in order to revise a query, Bailey’s system must detect the content of the query. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner. Accordingly, because a search operator filter is content within a query to specify a category of content for revising and executing search of the query, we agree with the Examiner (id.) that executing a search of the query includes detecting the search operator filter in the query. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey and Lunt. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey, Lunt, and Elvekrog. 4 Appeal 2016-007107 Application 13/873,393 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—10. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5