Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2015

12105759 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2015)

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. 12/105,759 04/18/2008 Wen-Huang Cheng YOR920080235US1 6325 48063 7590 03/25/2015 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2015 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 ____________ Ex parte WEN-HUANG CHENG and DAVID HAIM GOTZ ____________ Appeal 2013-000376 Application 12/105,759 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–21, 24, and 25. Claims 6, 10, 22, and 23 have been canceled. (Final Act. 2; App. Br. 21– 26.) 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed April 18, 2008; Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 28, 2012; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 26, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 17, 2012; Advisory Office Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed January 23, 2012; and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed November 9, 2011. Appeal 2013-000376 Application 12/105,759 2 Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns articles, systems, apparatus, and methods for locating information in a document by collecting user browsing behavior information, generating a context model using the collected user behavior data, dividing a user selected document into segments, and computing a relevance value for the segments utilizing the context model. (Spec. 1:5–7; 2:25–3:12; Abstract.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for locating information in a document relevant to an interest of a user, the method comprising: collecting information associated with a previous browsing behavior of the user of a document browser; generating a context model using the collected information, wherein the context model comprises a data structure defined by a set of nodes and a set of edges wherein each node corresponds to a data unit collected as part of the collected information associated with the previous browsing behavior of the user and each edge corresponds to a user- created association between nodes; obtaining a document selected by the user via the document browser in a current browsing behavior; dividing the selected document associated with the current browsing behavior into one or more segments; computing a relevance value for each of the one or more segments of the selected document associated with the current browsing behavior by comparing each of the one or more segments to the context model generated from the collected information associated with the previous browsing behavior, Appeal 2013-000376 Application 12/105,759 3 wherein the relevance value represents a relationship to an interest of the user and wherein the comparison comprises evaluating a similarity function between one or more of the nodes of the context model and the one or more segments of the selected document; and presenting each of the one or more segments with the computed relevance value in a defined organizational area of a display, wherein the one or more segments presented on the display are linked to a corresponding one or more segments in the selected document and assist the user in a resolution of a connection discovery task associated with the previous and current browsing behaviors. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–9, 12–21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz (US 6,460,036 B1, issued Oct. 1, 2002) and Wesemann (US 6,349,132 B1, issued Feb. 19, 2002). 2. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz, Wesemann, and Official Notice. ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Herz and Wesemann collectively would have taught or suggested: obtaining a document selected by the user via the document browser in a current browsing behavior; dividing the selected document associated with the current browsing behavior into one or more segments; [and] Appeal 2013-000376 Application 12/105,759 4 computing a relevance value for each of the one or more segments of the selected document associated with the current browsing behavior by comparing each of the one or more segments to the context model generated from the collected information associated with the previous browsing behavior, wherein the relevance value represents a relationship to an interest of the user and wherein the comparison comprises evaluating a similarity function between one or more of the nodes of the context model and the one or more segments of the selected document (claim 1) within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 19, 20, and 25? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Herz and Wesemann. (Final Act. 2–6; Ans. 3–22.) Appellants contend, inter alia, that Herz does not teach the recited context model, obtaining a document selected by a user, dividing the document into segments or computing a relevance value as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 13–20; Reply Br. 2–6.) We agree with Appellants that Herz and Wesemann do not teach or suggest the selecting a document (by a user) or dividing the document into one or more segments as required in claim 1. (App. Br. 17, 19; Reply Br. 3– 4.) Even though we agree with the Examiner’s findings — that Herz describes collecting information to generate clusters (a collection of target objects (see Herz, col. 4, ll. 18–26)) (Final Act. 4; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 14–17 (citing Herz, col. 23, ll. 59–67; col. 24, ll. 18–26; Fig. 7)) — and conclusion that Herz teaches the recited context model (Ans. 14–17), we disagree with the Examiner that the references teach selecting a document and dividing the Appeal 2013-000376 Application 12/105,759 5 document into segments (see Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Herz, col. 56, ll. 30–34; Wesemann, col. 9, ll. 35–38); Adv. Act. 2). Nowhere does the Examiner sufficiently explain how a user, utilizing a browser, selects a document, which is subsequently divided into segments. Retrieving and storing news articles (by an automated system) (Herz, col. 56, ll. 30–34) or prompting a client to select news stories (Wesemann, col. 9, ll. 35–38) does not teach or suggest selecting an actual document utilizing a browser and segmenting the document such that the recited relevance calculations/analysis can be performed on the document concurrent with a current browsing session. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Herz and Wesemann teach the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants’ independent claims 19, 20, and 25 include limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–5, 7–9, 11–18, 21, and 24 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–21, 24, and 25. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1– 5, 7–9, 11–21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–21, 24, and 25. REVERSED