Ex Parte Robinson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201411341128 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/341,128 01/27/2006 Eric M. Robinson 013.0294.US.UTL 2357 22895 7590 09/12/2014 CASCADIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 12360 Lake City Way NE, Ste 501 SEATTLE, WA 98125 EXAMINER MUELLER, KURT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/12/2014 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 ERIC M. ROBINSON and EDWARD L. WALTER ____________ Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1–30 and 32–41. We affirm. INVENTION The invention relates to formulating data search queries. (Spec., Abstract). Claims 1, 5, and 7 are representative and are reproduced below, with the disputed limitations of claim 1 highlighted: 1. A system for formulating data search queries, comprising: a user input interface module operable to specify an unstructured search criteria for a search query on one or more documents, comprising: Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 2 an input portal module configured to receive a data excerpt selected to be searched against the documents and further configured to convert the data excerpt into tokens; a selectable inclusiveness control module configured to specify a granularity of inclusion of matching tokens within each document; a selectable proximity control module configured to specify a degree of nearness of the tokens within each document; and a query generator configured to compile the tokens derived from the data excerpt and parameters corresponding to the granularity of inclusion and the degree of nearness into a combined search query, wherein the combined search query is compiled prior to execution of a search; a search engine configured to apply the combined search query to the documents during the search, to condition the search for one or more of the tokens within the documents on at least one of the granularity of inclusion and the degree of nearness, and to select at least one of the documents that matches the one or more of the tokens and satisfies the at least one of granularity of inclusion and the degree of nearness as search results; a user output interface module configured to present the search results; and a processor configured to execute the modules. 5. A system according to Claim 1, wherein the granularity of inclusion is determined based on a number of tokens h that must be matched by one or more words in each target document in accordance with the equation: where N is a total number of the tokens and is a value representing the granularity of inclusion specified through the selectable inclusiveness control module. Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 3 7. A system according to Claim 1, wherein the degree of nearness is determined based on a span s to be applied and a number of tokens to combine c during searching of each document in accordance with the equations: where N is a number of the tokens and is a value representing the degree of nearness specified through the selectable proximity control module. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1–9, 12–24, 27–30, and 32–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pant et al. (US 6,012,053, issued Jan. 4, 2000) (“Pant”) and Brill et al. (US 2005/0234904 A1, published Oct. 20, 2005) (Ans. 6). Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pant, Brill, and Kupiec (US 5,696,962, issued Dec. 9, 1997) (Ans. 25). Claims 11 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pant, Brill, and Gourlay (US 2004/0215608 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004) (Ans. 28). Claims 1–9, 12–24, 27–30, and 32–41 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pant and Evans et al. (US 6,915,308 B1, issued July 5, 2005) (Ans. 30). Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 4 ISSUES Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in error. The dispositive issues presented by these arguments are: Did the Examiner err in finding Pant and Brill teach or suggest a query generator configured to compile the tokens derived from the data excerpt and parameters corresponding to the granularity of inclusion and the degree of nearness into a combined search query, wherein the combined search query is compiled prior to execution of a search, as recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding Pant and Brill teach or suggest the granularity of inclusion is determined based on a number of tokens h that must be matched by one or more words in each target document in accordance with the equation recited in claim 5? Did the Examiner err in finding Pant and Brill teach or suggest the degree of nearness is determined based on a span s to be applied and a number of tokens to combine c during searching of each document in accordance with the equations recited in claim 7? ANALYSIS We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. In particular, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Pant fails to include tokens and parameters in a search query. (See App. Br. 11.) As the Examiner concludes: Pant figure 3 shows that the search query (figure element 156) and the relevance factors (element 158) are provided simultaneously to the server (figure element 160), which then hands them together to the query engine (starting at figure element 162). The search engine does its calculations, and then Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 5 provides the combined results together (figure element 178) back to the server together (figure element 160). The prior art is clear that the results are not returned to the user before the application of the relevance factors takes place. (Ans. 58). Moreover, as the Examiner concludes, the search query (Pant, Fig. 3, element 156) and the relevance factors (id., element 158) of Pant are combined prior to any computation into a singular query (id., element 162) (Ans. 59 (citing Pant, Fig. 3)). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions. Appellants argue the relevance factors of Pant change the presentation of the search results (App. Br. 11). The Examiner concedes Pant does not teach limiting the set of results based on the ranking criteria. (See Ans. 60). However, the Examiner rejects claim 1 over the combined teachings of Pant and Brill, and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Brill describes “results with a relevance that [do] . . . not meet the threshold can be discarded rather than returned to a user.” (See Ans. 7, 61 (citing Brill, ¶ 36).) Moreover, the Examiner finds combining Brill with Pant’s ranking process would have been obvious to one skilled in the art because inserting Brill’s culling of elements before returning a list to a user would not be inconsistent with the process described by Pant (see Ans. 61), which relates to returning relevant search results to a user (see Pant 3:33-55). Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that one of ordinary skill in the art “would be unlikely to combine Pant with Brill” because the combination “would require refining a number of the results in Pant for presenting to a Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 6 user, rather than providing all the results in a ranked manner” (Reply Br. 12– 13). First, arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief are typically waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pant’s ranking of results with Brill’s culling of results based on a threshold, before the results are ultimately presented to a user. (See Ans. 8, 23, 61.) We find the Examiner’s suggestion for this proposed modification suffices as an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to establish a conclusion of obviousness. (See id.) Similarly, for the reasons identified by the Examiner, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments with respect to the additional rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pant and Evans (see Ans. 30–33, 67–69). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We have considered Appellants’ arguments regarding independent claims 16 and 32. Those arguments present us with the same issues, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the same reasons. Appellants argue claim 37 recites “executing the search criteria on documents during the search . . .” and Evans fails to teach or suggest this element. (See App. Br. 21–22.) As noted above with respect to claim 1, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relies on Pant as teaching “executing the search Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 7 criteria on documents during the search . . .” as recited in claim 37. (See Ans. 21–22, 46.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions because Pant teaches executing the search query and relevance factors on documents during its search. (See Pant, 3:33–55, Fig. 3.) Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 for the reasons identified by the Examiner. With respect to dependent claims 5 and 7, the Examiner finds the equations claimed and the methods used by Pant are identical, and even if not identical, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to substitute one for the other because they are functionally equivalent. (See Ans. 63–64.) Regarding claim 5, Appellants argue “Pant discloses values for the relevance factors in the range of zero to 100.” (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner responds that while the claimed “p” must be a number between 0 and 1, these values represent a percentage, and 0.5 is the same as saying 50%. (Ans. 63.) The Examiner further concludes even if the method used by Pant is not identical to the claimed equation, they are functionally equivalent. (Id.) We agree, because as the Examiner finds, the method described in Pant determines the granularity of inclusion based on the number of tokens that must be matched by one or more words in each target document. (Ans. 63.) Appellants’ conclusory statements on page 13 of the Appeal Brief fail to provide persuasive evidence to rebut this conclusion. Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue Pant discloses “a distance is determined between two instances of words in a word pair, which is then compared with a threshold for assigning a bonus when the distance is below the threshold.” (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner responds that Pant and the Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 8 claimed elements consider granularity of inclusion when determining whether (or to what degree) a proposed result is a match (Ans. 64). The Examiner further concludes, even if there is a difference between Pant and the claimed equation, it would have been obvious to substitute one for the other. (Id.) We agree, because as the Examiner finds, the cited portion of Pant (column 12, lines 33–50) teaches the determination of the degree of nearness specified by a user (see Ans. 10 (citing Pant, 12:33–55), 64, Pant, Fig. 5). Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence to rebut this conclusion. Therefore, Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to claims 5 and 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7, 20, and 22. Appellants provide no additional argument why dependent claims 10, 11, 25, and 26 are not obvious. (See App. Br. 14–16, 24–25). Merely asserting that the cited prior art reference does not disclose a claim limitation is insufficient to show error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii)(2010); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for . . . [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 25, and 26. Appeal 2012-005303 Application 11/341,128 9 Appellants do not present separate arguments directed to the rejections of the remaining dependent claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–30 and 32–41 is affirmed. AFFIRMED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation