Ex Parte Conkel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

12075421 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 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.
12/075,421 03/11/2008 Dale W. Conkel 36MK-255166 2959
145169 7590 08/03/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DXC)
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
OFORI-AWUAH, MAAME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 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):
svpatents @ sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALE W. CONKEL
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,4211
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “systems and methods for
receiving and processing customer or client feedback.” Spec. 11. Claims 1
and 25, which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A method for managing customer feedback, comprising:
receiving a recording of spoken customer feedback in a
server data processing system;
transcribing the customer feedback in the server data
processing system to produce a transcript;
storing the transcript in a customer feedback database;
generating and storing an index of words within the
transcript;
identifying words in the transcript that correspond to
predefined keywords, wherein said keywords include keywords
that correspond to an identification of a good or service and
keywords that correspond to a customer’s comments about that
good or service; and
generating a report according to the identified words and
the transcript, wherein said report draws a correspondence
between identified words corresponding to an identification of a
good or service and a customer’s comments about that good or
service.
25. A data processing system comprising a processor and
accessible storage, the data processing system configured to
perform the steps of:
receiving at least one digital recording of spoken feedback
regarding a product or service, said feedback representing
feedback from a customer of said product or service;
2
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
recognizing individual words in said spoken feedback for
transcribing the customer feedback to produce an electronic
transcript of each instance of spoken feedback;
storing all transcripts in a customer feedback database in
the accessible storage;
generating and storing an index of individual words within
each of a plurality of transcripts stored in said customer feedback
database, said index further indicating a location within each of
the transcripts for each indexed word;
identifying words in the database of transcripts that
correspond to predefined keywords, each keyword having
associated therewith a specific value within a range including
positive and negative values; and
generating a report according to the identified words, the
report including a summation of positive and negative values
associated with the identified keywords that correspond to the
identified words; and
making recommendations regarding said product or
service based on said report.
Rejections
Claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 13—14.
Claims 1—9 and 11—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Rigazio et al. (US 2005/0010411
Al; published Jan. 13, 2005) (“Rigazio”), Bossemeyer et al. (US
2003/0041056 Al; published Feb. 27, 2003) (“Bossemeyer”), and Corston-
Oliver (US 2006/0200341 Al; published Sept. 7, 2006) (“Corston”). Final
Act. ^U10.
3
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
Claims 10, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Rigazio, Bossemeyer, Corston,
and Robins (US 5,392,428; issued Feb. 21, 1995). Final Act. 10-14.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that claims 1—25 are directed to
nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: “Whoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has “long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception” that “[ljaws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)
(quotation omitted). “Issues of patent-eligible subject matter are questions
of law and are reviewed without deference.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). To determine
patentable subject matter, the Supreme Court has set forth a two-part test.
Alice Corp. v. CLSBanklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Step One
Before determining whether claims at issue are directed to an abstract
idea, we must first determine what the claims are directed to.
The “directed to” inquiry [ ] cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
4
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural
phenomenon—after all, they take place in the physical world.
See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293 (“For all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas.”) Rather, the “directed to” inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
specification, based on whether “their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see
Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 2016 WL 1393573, at *5
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (inquiring into “the focus of the claimed advance
over the prior art”).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to computer-enabled claimed subject matter, it can be
helpful to determine whether “the claims at issue . . . can readily be
understood as simply adding conventional computer components to well-
known business practices” or not. Id. at 1338. See also Affinity Labs of
Tex., LLCv. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Enfish, for example, the court noted that “[sjoftware can make non­
abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware
improvements can[.]” Id. The court put the question as being “whether the
focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, at 1335—1336.
In Enfish, the court found that the “plain focus of the claims” there was on
“an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other
tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1336.
“In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for
patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
5
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). The question is whether the
claims as a whole “focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology” or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2016). “The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s
‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Affinity Labs
of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335, quoted in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth,
Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, the claims as a whole are focused on producing and
storing a transcript of a recording of spoken customer feedback; generating
and storing an index of words within the transcript; identifying words in the
transcript that correspond to predefined keywords; and generating a report
based on the identified keywords. Cf. In re TLI Communications LLC
Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the claims, focus
“was not on an improved telephone unit or an improved server.”)
The Background section of the Specification discusses the problem,
which is “[cjurrent Customer Feedback systems do not gather enough
information to educate businesses of exactly what customers or clients want
as far products or services, or to let the businesses know where they have
succeeded or failed in pleasing the customer.” Spec. 12. According to the
Specification, the inventors solved the problem by a obtaining and
transcribing a digital recording of spoken customer feedback; generating and
6
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
storing an index from the transcript; and searching and analyzing the stored
index. See Spec. 14—16. In light of the Specification’s description of the
problem and solution, the advance over the prior art by the claimed
invention is creating and using an index to search for, retrieve, and analyze
customer feedback. This is the heart of the invention. Cf. Intellectual
Ventures ILLC v. Erie Indemnity Company, 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2017)(“the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index
to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept.”)
Given the focus of the claims as a whole is producing and storing a
transcript of a recording of spoken customer feedback; generating and
storing an index of words within the transcript; identifying words in the
transcript that correspond to predefined keywords; and generating a report
based on the identified keywords and, in light of the Specification, the heart
of the invention is a system for automating the process of obtaining and
analyzing customer feedback, the claims are properly characterized as being
“directed to” creating and using an index to search for, retrieve, and analyze
customer feedback — an abstract idea. See id.
Step Two
In the second step, we “consider the elements of each claim both
individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). The
Supreme Court has “described step two of this analysis as a search for an
‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
7
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Appellant contends the claims “the claimed subject matter is an
improvement to another technical field, i.e., the field of product design”
because “the report generated by the subject matter of claim 1 directly
informs the related field of product design so as to advance the design of any
product or service being analyzed.” Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. The claims merely recite
steps performed using conventional computer technology to perform entirely
conventional steps. Claim 1, for example, requires the recording of spoken
customer feedback be received, transcribed, and the resulting transcript
stored, in a server data processing system. As described in the Specification,
“[ojnce uploaded, the voice recordings are converted/transcribed by the
customer feedback system using conventional voice recognition techniques.”
Spec. 115. The remaining limitations of identifying words in the transcript
and generating a report according to the identified words, are not required to
be performed by any computer technology and, therefore, may be performed
manually by a user. In other words, the claim merely recites the abstract
idea and says “apply it” using computer technology. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1294; Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). As recognized by the
Supreme Court, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform
a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” See Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2359 (concluding claims “simply instruct[ing] the practitioner
to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic
computer” not patent eligible); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
F.3d 709, 715—16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims merely reciting abstract idea of
8
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
using advertising as currency as applied to particular technological
environment of the Internet not patent eligible); Accenture Global Servs.,
GmbHv. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (claims reciting “generalized software components arranged to
implement an abstract concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks
based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a
computer” not patent eligible); and Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d
1315, 1333—34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[sjimply adding a ‘computer aided’
limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is
insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible” (internal citation omitted)).
Appellant’s contention (Reply Br. 5) that the claims recite
significantly more than the abstract idea because “the claimed subject matter
is an improvement to another technical field, i.e., the field of product
design,” is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
the claims. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the claims do not require
any action to be taken with respect to the generated report.
We conclude claims 1—25 are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract
idea and recite no element or combination of elements that amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Rigazio,
Bossemeyer, and Corston teaches or suggests “generating a report according
9
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
to the identified words and the transcript, wherein said report draws a
correspondence between identified words corresponding to an identification
of a good or service and a customer’s comments about that good or service,”
as recited in claim 1?
Appellant contends the combination of Rigazio, Bossemeyer, and
Corston fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 13—15;
Reply Br. 8—11. In particular, Appellant contends Corston teaches detecting
the sentiment of a sentence and does not teach or suggest “operat[ing] on
words that have been identified [as] corresponding to pre-defmed keywords”
or “describe a report that draws a correspondence between such identified
words that are both identifying a good or service and commenting on that
good or service,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 14—15 (citing Corston
1141 42). Appellant acknowledges that Corston’s teaching regarding
identifying documents from which sentences will be extracted for the
sentiment analyzer “mentions the use of keywords” but argues Corston fails
to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because “Corston is not operating
on a transcript of spoken customer feedback.” Reply Br. 9. According to
Appellant, “Corston is expressly operating only on written electronic
documents, not a transcript of spoken customer feedback.” Id. Appellant
further argues:
Carston does not describe “identifying words in the transcript
that correspond to predefined keywords, wherein said keywords
include keywords that correspond to an identification of a good
or service and keywords that correspond to a customer’s
comments about that good or service.” (emphasis added).
Carston operates on sentences from documents that have been
identified possibly using keywords. Carston does not operate on
words themselves that have been identified corresponding to pre-
defmed keywords. And, Carston does not describe a report that
10
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
draws a correspondence between such identified words that are
both identifying a good or service and commenting on that good
or service, as claimed, i.e., “generating a report according to the
identified words and the transcript, wherein said report draws a
correspondence between identified words corresponding to an
identification of a good or service and a customer’s comments
about that good or service. ” (Emphasis added).
Reply Br. 10.
We do not find Appellant’s contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Rigazio teaches or suggests “identifying words in the
transcript that correspond to predefined keywords wherein said keywords
include keywords that correspond to an identification of a good or service
and keywords that correspond to a customer’s comments about that good or
service.” Final Act. 5 (citing Rigazio, Fig. 4; || 15, 25); Ans. 3. We also
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Rigazio teaches “the preferred
embodiment generates a transcript based on the recognized speech of the
multiple, interacting speakers, and records summarized and supplemented
mined speech data in association with the transcript. The result is a rapid
and reliable generation of a rich transcript useful in providing rich, rapid
feedback to a call center quality management process and/or product/service
quality management process.” Final Act. 6 (citing Rigazio 118). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Corston teaches “sentiment analysis is
performed on reviews about a product feature by analyzing keywords in the
reviews and a report is generated.” Final Act. 6 (citing Corston || 15,
3 5—42). The Examiner, therefore, finds the combination of Rigazio and
Corston teaches or suggests “generating a report according to the identified
words and the transcript, wherein said report draws a correspondence
between identified words corresponding to an identification of a good or
11
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
service and a customer’s comments about that good or service,” as recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 7. Appellant’s contentions fail to address the
combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of
error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Regarding the rejection of claims 2—6 and 8—24, because Appellant
has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above (see App. Br. 13—21), we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejection claims 2—6 and 8—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the reasons discussed supra with respect to the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 7
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Rigazio,
Bossemeyer, and Corston teaches or suggests “further conducting an
interview with a customer for feedback, wherein the spoken customer
feedback is spoken by a person who conducted the interview into a
recording device,” as recited in claim 7?
Appellant contends the combination of Rigazio, Bossemeyer, and
Corston fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because
Bossemeyer, upon which the Examiner relies, does not teach or suggest the
spoken customer feedback being spoken by a person conducting the
interview, as required by claim 7. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 12—13. Appellant
12
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
contends Bossemeyer, instead, teaches the spoken customer feedback is
spoken by the customer. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bossemeyer teaches if a customer
feedback instance is initiated by a telephone call, the service representative
will converse with the customer and the voice data from the telephone call is
recorded in its entirety. Ans. 19 (citing Bossemeyer 127). Bossemeyer
further teaches the service representative may summarize the pertinent
information from the conversation and enter the summarized information
into the service representative terminal via a graphical user interface.
Bossemeyer 127. Bossemeyer teaches that the summarized information
may include an identification of the product or service to which the customer
feedback instance pertains, the date and/or time the customer feedback
instance was received, the reason for the customer feedback, and/or
comments regarding the customer feedback. Id. Because Bossemeyer
teaches that the summarized information is sent to the data acquisition
processor (Bossemeyer 127) and that the data acquisition processor
examines the input signals received from the service representative terminal
and determines whether the received signal is an audio signal (Bossemeyer
132), Bossemeyer teaches, or at least suggests, that the summarized
information may be an audio signal (e.g., spoken by the service
representative by speaking the summarized information into a recording
device). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Bossemeyer teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
13
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
Claim 25
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Rigazio,
Bossemeyer, Corston, and Robins teaches or suggests “identifying words in
the database of transcripts that correspond to predefined keywords, each
keyword having associated therewith a specific value within a range
including positive and negative values,” as recited in claim 25?
Appellant contends the cited references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. App. Br. 17—21; Reply Br. 13—16. According to
Appellant, the Examiner relies on Corston for teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitations. See id. In particular, Appellant contends Corston fails
to teach or suggest “identifying words in the database of transcripts that
correspond to predefined keywords,” as recited in claim 25. Appellant
argues “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion ... [in the cited portions of
Corston] of ‘identifying words in the database of transcripts that correspond
to predefined keywords.’” App. Br. 19 (citing Corston || 41 42).
Appellant further contends the applied references fail to teach or
suggest “each keyword having associated therewith a specific value within a
range including positive and negative values.” App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 14.
In particular, Appellant contends
[T]he cited portion of Corston actually states “that sentiment
analyzer 208 is trained to identify whether the sentences (or other
linguistic units) in clusters 224 are positive, negative, or neutral
with respect to sentiment.” (Corston, paragraphs 0041-0042)
(emphasis added). Thus, Corston does not teach or suggest “each
keyword having associated therewith a specific value within a
range including positive and negative values.” (Claim 25)
(emphasis added). Corston looks at sentences and does not
operate on “predefined keywords” as recited in claim 25.
App. Br. 19.
14
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
We do not find Appellant’s contentions persuasive. As found by the
Examiner (Ans. 20), Corston teaches that the sentiment analyzer is trained to
identify whether the sentences or other linguistic units (e.g., words, phrases,
paragraphs, etc.) are positive, negative, or neutral with respect to sentiment.
Corston 141. Corston further teaches “[wjhile the present example
discusses analyzing sentences for sentiment, this analysis can be performed
on linguistic units of different levels of granularity as well.” Id. As also
found by the Examiner (Ans. 20), Corston teaches providing an indicator
“which indicates the overall, or average sentiment for each cluster. For
instance, if the average sentiment of the sentences in the ‘handling’ cluster is
positive, then the cluster may be shaded in blue, whereas if the overall
sentiment of the sentences in the cluster is negative, then it may be shaded in
red.” Corston 149. Corston further teaches “the intensity of the shade can
also represent how positive or negative the sentiment is that is represented
by the cluster.” Corston 149. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 20—21)
that Corston teaches that the sentiment is determined based on certain
keywords that have been identified as indicating sentiment. Corston 1 62.
Because Corstson teaches that the indicator indicates the “overall” or
“average” sentiment for each cluster and that the intensity of the shade can
represent how positive or negative the sentiment is that is represented by the
cluster, Corston teaches or suggests that each keyword indicating sentiment
is associated with a value indicating how strongly the keyword indicates that
particular sentiment. Because Corston teaches that the sentiment analyzer
determines whether each sentence, or other linguistic unit, is positive,
negative, or neutral with respect to sentiment, Corston teaches or suggests
15
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
that the range of values indicating how strongly a keyword indicates a
particular sentiment includes both positive and negative values.
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Rigazio,
Bossemeyer, Corston, and Robins teaches or suggests “generating a report
according to the identified words, the report including a summation of
positive and negative values associated with the identified keywords that
correspond to the identified words,” as recited in claim 25?
Appellant further contends the cited references fail to teach or suggest
the disputed limitation because:
Corston describes a sentiment analysis performed on a cluster of
sentences from different documents. This is not the same thing,
at all, as “generating a report according to the identified words,
the report including a summation of positive and negative values
associated with the identified keywords that correspond to the
identified words. ” (Claim 25) (emphasis added). Corston does
not ever teach or suggest positive and negative values associated
with keywords, rather than whole sentences. Cortson never
teaches or suggests “a summation of positive and negative values
associated with the identified keywords.”
App. Br. 20. Appellant argues Corston teaches providing a summary of the
sentiment of the sentences in each cluster but Corston’s summary is “merely
a summary of the sentiment expressed in the cluster” and “[i]t is not... ‘a
summation of positive and negative values associated with the identified
keywords that correspond to the identified words,’” as recited in claim 25.
Reply Br. 15 (citing Corston 149).
We do not find Appellant’s contention persuasive. As discussed
supra, Corston teaches that the indicator indicates the “overall” or “average”
sentiment for each cluster and that the intensity of the shade can represent
16
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
how positive or negative the sentiment is that is represented by the cluster.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand
that a determination of the overall or average score for a cluster requires a
summation of values associated with how strongly each linguistic unit (e.g.,
identified keyword) included in the cluster indicates sentiment. As such,
Corston teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Rigazio,
Bossemeyer, Corston, and Robins teaches or suggests “making
recommendations regarding said product or service based on said report,” as
recited in claim 25?
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 because
the Examiner failed to address the disputed limitation. App. Br. 20. In the
Answer, the Examiner finds Corston teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation because Corston teaches providing a user a view of a report that
indicates changes in sentiment over time that allows the user to determine
whether the overall user sentiment regarding a certain feature of a product
has been growing more positive or negative over time. Ans. 22 (citing
Corston 171). Appellant fails to present evidence persuasive to rebut the
Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 25.
17
Appeal 2016-002784
Application 12/075,421
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—25 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18