Ex Parte KLAPAFTIS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

13922852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/922,852 06/20/2013 IOANNIS KLAPAFTIS 45809 7590 03/29/2019 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 2555 GRAND BOULEVARD KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613 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. 338529-US-NP/MFCP.181717 5167 EXAMINER TZENG, FENG-TZER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2659 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): IPDOCKET@SHB.COM IPRCDKT@SHB.COM usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IO ANNIS KLAP AFTIS and ANTONINO GULLI Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-27. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Sauls (US 2010/0333000 Al; Dec. 30, 2010), Thomas (US 2007/0073713 Al; Mar. 29, 2007), and Schachter (US 2007/0185844 Al; Aug. 9, 2007). Final Act. 5-14. Claims 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Sauls and Thomas. Final Act. 14--24. Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "mining web content for synonyms for selected words and/or phrases and presenting such web-based synonyms in the context of applications that permit text editing." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. One or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform a method for providing alternate text options, the method comprising: displaying text within a text editing session of a text editing client application running on a client device; receiving a user selection made by a user within the displayed text of at least one word or phrase for which an alternate word or phrase is desired; receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by the user in another text editing session; mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase, based at least in part on the behavioral signal comprising the selection of text made by the user in the other text editing session; and presenting the at least one alternate word or phrase within the client application in which the at least one word or phrase is selected. 2 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, AND 19 OVER SAULS, THOMAS, AND SCHACHTER The Examiner finds Sauls, Thomas, and Schachter teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5-9. In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls does not disclose ( claim 1) ( emphasis added) "receiving a user selection made by a user within the displayed text," but finds Thomas teaches this limitation. Final Act. 7. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sauls and Thomas "to provide user-selected search terms directly from displayed information for the convenience of finding alternate terms for an application." Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas do not disclose ( claim 1) "receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by the user in another text editing session" and mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase ( claim 1) "based at least in part on the behavioral signal comprising the selection of text made by the user in the other text editing session," but finds Schachter teaches this limitation. Final Act. 8. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sauls, Thomas, and 3 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 Schachter to provide "user bias (based on user behavior) for a user- customized system to improve the relevance of the search results." Final Act. 9. Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. The references do not teach "receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by the user in another text editing session." See App. Br. 11-13. Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portion of Sauls does not describe selecting text in a text editing session, but rather merely states that the "search tool" may be integrated into a word processing application. The search tool, however, receives search terms that are typed into a search box, not a selection of text made by the user in another text editing session. The cited portion of Thomas describes how a user may select a displayed term and initiate a search of the term. Paragraph 0028 does not describe the "displayed term" as text in a text editing session. However, even if one were to interpret the "displayed term" as text in a text editing session, Thomas does not describe a selection of text in another text editing sess10n. App. Br. 11. "The selection of search results by clicking on a hyperlink [in Schachter] does not teach or suggest a selection of text, or a selection of text in another text editing session." App. Br. 12. "Appellant respectfully submits that[] Schachter's description of "'offline' activities (e.g., telephone calls)" does not teach a selection of text, or a selection of text in another text editing session." App. Br. 12. "[T]he only teaching of a selection of text cited by the Examiner was Thomas' s reference to selecting a displayed term. But that is not a selection in another session, but rather is a selection in the user's current session." App. Br. 12-13. Sauls describes a search tool that receives search terms typed into a search box; Thomas describes how a user may select a 4 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 term in a current session (though arguably not in a text editing session) and initiate a search of the term; and Schachter describes collecting information about which search results a user clicks on, and offline information about telephone calls, purchases, and locations. Reply. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2-5. 11. The references do not teach "mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase." See App. Br. 13-16. "Sauls first identifies the synonym from a thesaurus, and then performs a search using the synonym as a search term to find web pages that include the synonym that was identified from the thesaurus." App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 5-7. "Thomas does not describe using a search- engine search to determine synonyms, but rather the search engine simply returns conventional-type search results." App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 7- 8. We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellants' argument (i), [t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants' argument (i) is directed to the various references individually, while the contested findings are based on the collective teachings of the references. For this reason, we do not see any errors in the Examiner's fact findings disputed by Appellants' argument (i). 5 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 3-5 (citing Sauls ,r 43, Thomas ,r 28, Schachter ,r,r 32-33). Sauls discloses "[a]lternately or additionally, the search module or tool can be more closely integrated with an application. Examples of applications include word processing applications, email applications, instant messaging applications, web browsers and the like." Sauls ,r 43 ( emphasis added). Thomas discloses "while viewing information displayed in presentation screen 108, the computer end user may desire to research a particular displayed term. The computer end user may select the term(s) and, at block 204, initiate a search of the term(s)." Thomas ,r 28 (emphasis added). Thus, Sauls and Thomas, collectively, teach a selection of text made by the user (Thomas i-f28) in a text editing session (Sauls ,r 43). Schachter discloses a contact history analyzer collecting and storing information concerning online activities of users, and collecting and storing information concerning offline activities of users. Schachter ,r,r 32-33. Thus, Schachter teaches receiving behavior signals related to historical activities of users. When combined with Sauls' s and Thomas' s selection of text made by a user in a text editing session, Schachter teaches "receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by the user in another text editing session" as recited in claim 1. Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 5-7 (citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30, Thomas ,r 28). 6 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 Sauls discloses "a search tool provides the user with the ability to search for one or both of synonyms of, or syntactically similar words to search terms that they enter." Sauls ,r 15. Sauls discloses "the search tool is implemented in the context of a web browser and can be utilized for searching web pages." Sauls ,r 1 7. Thus, Sauls teaches "mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase" as recited in claim 1. When Sauls indicates the occurrences of search terms, synonyms, and similar words in web pages, web content has been mined because of the identified relationship between the web pages. Further, indicating the occurrences of synonyms and similar words in web pages determines such synonyms and similar words by identifying them. Thomas discloses "the search results may comprise a dictionary look- up of a particular term and the end user may select a desirable definition or synonym to be associated with the term( s) in presentation screen 108." Thomas ,r 28. Thus, Thomas also teaches "mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase" as recited in claim 1. When Thomas indicates a synonym, web content has been mined because of the identified relationship between the term and the synonym. Further, indicating the synonym determines an alternate word. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 16. 7 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9-12, 15-18, 20, AND 21 OVER SAULS AND THOMAS Claim 9 The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim 9. Final Act. 14--17. In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls teaches "utilizing at least Natural Language Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the received user selection of text" as recited in claim 9. See Final Act. 15 (citing Sauls ,r,r 13, 17, 30, 35). In particular, the Examiner finds Thomas teaches "receiving at least one contextual signal related to the received user selection of text, wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the displayed document" as recited in claim 9. See Final Act. 16-17 (citing Thomas ,r,r 4--5, 24, 28). Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. The references do not teach "utilizing at least Natural Language Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the received user selection of text." See App. Br. 17-19; see also Reply Br. 5-8. "Appellant respectfully submits that 'searching web pages' in paragraph 001 7, and 'search for synonyms of search terms' in paragraph 0013, do not teach mining web content." App. Br. 17. "Appellant respectfully submits that 'syntactically similar' as used in Sauls does not refer to utilizing natural language processing, but rather simply refers to words that have an alternative spelling or a similar spelling." App. Br. 17. "[T]he context described in Sauls is obtained from a thesaurus, selected by a user, and simply serves to narrow the user's search. Sauls does not 8 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 teach that the context is determined through natural language processing, or that the context is utilized for natural language processing to mine web content for alternate text options." App. Br. 19. 11. The references do not teach "wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the displayed document." See App. Br. 19-21; see also Reply Br. 9- 10. "Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Thomas merely describe searches of selected terms, but do not describe using a contextual signal that include[s] text which surrounds a selected word or phrase." App. Br. 20. "Thomas is silent regarding a portion of text that surrounds the selected contiguous words." App. Br. 21. We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellants' argument (i), we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 5---6 (citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30). For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, Sauls teaches "mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the received user selection of text" as recited in claim 9. See Sauls ,r,r 15, 17. Regarding "utilizing at least Natural Language Processing," we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanation that searching for syntactically similar words in Sauls reasonably describes Natural Language Processing. See Ans. 6. Appellants' Specification supports the Examiner's broad but reasonable construction of "Natural Language Processing." See Spec ,r 36 (emphasis added) ("Machine Leaming and Natural Language Processing techniques (e.g., lexical substitution techniques) are utilized in 9 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 making such determination."). Thus, Sauls teaches "utilizing at least Natural Language Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the received user selection of text" as recited in claim 9. Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 7-8 ( citing Thomas ,r 5) ("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching 'contiguous words,' it means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the 'selected ( desired) word or phrase.'). Thomas discloses "[ s Jome word processing applications offer a dictionary look-up feature which enables an end user to select contiguous words displayed in the document and search for the definition of, or synonyms for, the selected words in a local dictionary database." Thomas ,r 5. When combined with the teachings of Sauls, Sauls' s search tool searches web pages for similar-meaning contiguous words. See Sauls ,r,r 15, 17; Thomas ,r 5. Thus, a word or phrase within the contiguous words is the claimed "selected word or phrase" and the remainder of the contiguous words is the "text which surrounds the selected word or phrase." Thus, the cited references teach "wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the displayed document" as recited in claim 9. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-12, 15, and 16, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 26. 10 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 Claim 17 The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim 17. Final Act. 18-22. In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls teaches "mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or phrase" as recited in claim 17. See Final Act. 20 (citing Sauls ,r,r 13, 17). In particular, the Examiner finds Thomas teaches "wherein the at least one contextual signal is based on at least a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the running client application" as recited in claim 17. See Final Act. 21-22 (citing Thomas ,r,r 4--5, 24, 28). Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. The references do not teach "mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or phrase." See App. Br. 21-23. "Sauls first identifies the synonym from a thesaurus, and then performs a search using the synonym as a search term to find web pages that include the synonym that was identified from the thesaurus." App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 5-7. "Thomas does not describe using a search- engine search to determine synonyms, but rather the search engine simply returns conventional-type search results." App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 7- 8. 11. The references do not teach "wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the displayed document." See App. Br. 23-25; see also Reply Br. 9- 10. "Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Thomas merely describe searches of selected terms, but do not describe using a contextual signal that is based on text which surrounds a selected word or 11 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 phrase." App. Br. 24. "Thomas is silent regarding a portion of text that surrounds the selected contiguous words." App. Br. 25. We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellants' argument (i), these same arguments were addressed above when addressing claim 1. For the same reasons given above, we find the cited references teach "mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or phrase" as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 5-7 (citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30, Thomas ,r 28). Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), these same arguments were addressed above when addressing claim 9. For the same reasons given above, we find the cited references teach "wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the displayed document" as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 7-8 ( citing Thomas ,r 5) ("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching 'contiguous words,' it means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the 'selected ( desired) word or phrase.'). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 20, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 26. Claim 21 The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim 21. Final Act. 23. Claim 21 recites "wherein the at least a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the running client application is text other than the selected word or phrase." The Examiner 12 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 finds Thomas teaches this additional subject matter recited by claim 21. Final Act. 23 ( citing Thomas ,r 5). Appellants present the following principal argument: The references do not teach "wherein the at least a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the running client application is text other than the selected word or phrase." See App. Br. 25-26. "[T]he 'contiguous words' described in Thomas are the selected text, and thus cannot be 'text other than the selected word or phrase' as recited in claim 21." App. Br. 25; see also Reply Br. 9-10. We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellants' argument, we find the cited references teach "wherein the at least a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the running client application is text other than the selected word or phrase" as recited in claim 21. See Ans. 7-8 ( citing Thomas ,r 5) ("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching 'contiguous words,' it means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the 'selected (desired) word or phrase.'). Put another way, nothing in the claim language precludes selection of the surrounding text and selection of the word or phrase within the surrounding text. That is, the selected surround text is text other than the selected word or phrase, which is surrounded. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-21 is affirmed. 13 Appeal2018-002448 Application 13/922,852 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 14