Ex Parte Haveliwala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 2, 2013

10641489 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TAHER HAVELIWALA, GLEN JEH, and SEPANDAR KAMVAR ____________________ Appeal 2011-001981 Application 10/641,489 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001981 Application 10/641,489 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 20-42. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to "retrieval of electronic data in a computer network and, in particular, performing integrated data retrieval searches over a plurality of databases." (Spec. 1:4- 6). Independent claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 20. A method, implemented at a client, comprising: submitting a query to a server; receiving from the server, in a single transaction: a comprehensive list of search results that satisfy the query, wherein the comprehensive list contains a single entry for each unique search result, and multiple position vectors, each position vector identifying a respective ordered subset of the search results in the comprehensive list; storing the comprehensive list and the multiple position vectors; receiving a user-made selection identifying a subset of the multiple position vectors; and Appeal 2011-001981 Application 10/641,489 3 displaying a subset of the search results in the comprehensive list in accordance with the user-made selection. REFERENCES Mukherjee US Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0103087 A1 May 27, 2004 (Filed Nov. 25, 2002) Dwork US 7,188,106 B2 Mar. 6, 2007 (Filed Apr. 30, 2002) REJECTION Claims 20-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee and Dwork. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants provide a useful overview of the claimed invention at page 4 of the Reply Brief. While the specific illustration is not in the original Specification, we find the overview to be well supported by the originally filed Specification and drawings and illustrative of the claimed invention (see Reply Br. 4). We find Appellants’ arguments in the Reply Brief to be well founded, and we adopt them as our own. (Reply Br. 3-7). For example, Appellants contend the Examiner has not shown the prior art combination teaches or fairly suggests the claimed "receiving multiple position vectors at a client" (claim 20’s language recites "receiving from the server, in a single transaction: . . . multiple position vectors.") (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner maintains the Dwork reference teaches producing partial lists of results which are aggregated to produce a final ranking, but the Examiner does not specifically identify where the Dwork or Mukherjee references Appeal 2011-001981 Application 10/641,489 4 specifically teach or suggest "multiple position vectors, each position vector identifying a respective ordered subset of the search results in the comprehensive list" as recited in claim 20. (Ans. 14-15). Additionally, Appellants contend that the combination of the Dwork and Mukherjee references does not teach or fairly suggest receiving a user selection of position vectors and displaying search results in accordance with that selection. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5). The Examiner maintains: Mukherjee further discloses a user selection in paragraph [(]0024). The user are[sic] receiving custom searches meaning the user is completely in control of the types of results they receive. Customization is the epitome [of] selection. If a user is in charge of the displaying of their results there has to be some selecting being done on part of the user and Dwork discloses position vectors since Dwork discloses that partial list only rank some elements and result in some results being missed even though there are times where a partial list is preferable (See Dwork column 4 lines 45-65). Dwork discloses that multiple search engines handle a search producing partial list of results the results are aggregated to produce the final ranking (See column 12 lines 20-30). Dwork further discloses that a full list created by assigning position vectors to each candidate and then sorting the candidates. . . . (Ans. 20-21). Appellants maintain “[e]ven if this assertion were true, it is irrelevant to the claim language at issue. The claims here address user selection of which search results to display from the comprehensive list that was received.” (Reply Br. 6). We agree with Appellants since the selection in the Mukherjee reference is with respect to the interface which is not specifically relevant to a received comprehensive list. Therefore, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claim 20 Appeal 2011-001981 Application 10/641,489 5 and its dependent claims 21-24, 41, and 42. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). Independent claims 25, 30, 35, 39, and 40 contain similar limitations which the Examiner has not shown to be obvious in view of the proffered combination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims and their respective dependent claims 26-29, 31-34, and 36-38. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-42 is reversed. REVERSED Vsh/llw