Ex Parte Srivastava et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2016

13531148 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/531,148 06/22/2012 57101 7590 03/09/2016 IBM CORPORATION - SVL (JVL) C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN 6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT. AUSTIN, TX 78739 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dhanashree Srivastava 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. SVL920100076US2 6879 EXAMINER MAMILLAP ALLI, PAV AN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2016 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): LESLIE@VL-PATENTS.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DHANASHREE SRIVASTAVA and AMY DELPHINE TRAVIS Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTNEY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MELISSA A. HAAPLA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-10, which are all of the claims currently pending in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 6 and 11 were canceled in the Amendment after Final filed on May 7, 2013. App. Br. 5. Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to using group data to enhance search activities. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method comprising: receiving a search request from a user, the search request including one or more search terms; identifying the user as a member of a common group of users, the common group of users being a subset of a plurality of search engine users; retrieving a first plurality of search results based on the search request; refining the first plurality of search results into a second plurality of search results by comparing at least one of the one or more search terms to a plurality of previously captured search data corresponding to the common group of users; displaying the second plurality of search results on a display device; retrieving a historical search data of the user, the historical search data including a plurality of user historical search terms previously entered by the user and a plurality of user historical search actions previously requested by the user, wherein the user historical search actions are associated with the user historical search terms; comparing the one or more search terms to the plurality of user historical search terms to identify a subset of the plurality of user historical search actions; and displaying the subset of the plurality of user historical search actions on the display device. 2 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8-14 of copending Application No. 13/022,119. 2 Claims 1-2 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Weng (US 2010/0114938 Al; published May 6, 2010), Bowman (US 6,006,225; issued Dec. 21, 1999), and Davidson (US 200710162294 A 1; published July 12, 2007). Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Weng, Bowman, Davidson, and Lewallen (US 2012/0166415 Al; published June 28, 2012). ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Weng, Bowman, and Davidson teach or suggest the following limitations recited in independent claim 1: i) "refining the first plurality of search results into a second plurality of search results" ("refining" limitation); ii) "search data corresponding to the common group of users" ("group search data" limitation) and iii) "historical search data including a plurality of user historical search terms previously entered by the user and a plurality of user historical search actions previously requested by the user" ("historical search data" limitation)? 2 As of the mailing date of this Decision, copending parent Application No. 13/022,119 has not issued as a patent (see related PTAB Appeal No. 2014- 004203); therefore, this rejection remains provisional. See App. Br. 2. 3 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Weng, Bowman, and Davidson teach or suggest "displaying group historical search actions," as recited in independent claim 8? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error. Double-Patenting Rejection Appellants do not submit any arguments contesting the provisional double patenting rejection, but instead indicate that they will submit a terminal disclaimer upon allowance of claims in the co-pending application. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.'} Issue A: Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1-5 Appellants contend the combination of Weng, Bowman, and Davidson does not teach or suggest the "refining," "group search data," and "historical search data" limitations recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 2---6. Specifically, Appellants argue Bowman describes "'search refinement methods' that are helpful for 'suggesting related terms' that can then be used in subsequent search queries," which "does not refine first search results into second search results." Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue Bowman's search terms do not correspond to a common group of users and disagrees with the Examiner's construction that users are part of a common group if they are searching for the same item. App. Br. 7; Reply 4 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 Br. 4. Additionally, Appellants argue Bowman uses historical activities of previous users to determine suggested query terms, but does not describe retrieving historical search terms and historical search actions for the current user (user who is performing the search). Reply Br. 5---6. We are not persuaded by these arguments. We agree with the Examiner that Bowman teaches a search refinement system that presents related terms to a user and that refining search terms leads to refining search results. See Ans. 31 (citing Bowman 6:19-32); Final Act. 12. Under a broad, yet reasonable interpretation, we conclude Appellants' claim 1 does not preclude user involvement in the refining process. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding (id.) that Bowman teaches or suggests the "refining" limitation. We further agree with the Examiner that Bowman teaches the "group search data" limitation. Final Act. 12 (citing e.g., Bowman 2:28--46). The Examiner correctly concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "common group of users" encompasses a group of users searching for the same item. Ans. 31. Appellants' do not persuade us that the Examiner's construction is unreasonably broad or inconsistent with the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("During examination of a patent application, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."). With regard to the "historical search data" limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bowman teaches or suggests this limitation. Final 5 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 Act. 15 (citing e.g., Bowman 5:5-7);3 Ans. 33 (citing Bowman 8:49-9:21; 14:31--42). Specifically, Bowman teaches recoding user transactions, including query submissions ("historical search data") and actions, such as a request to place an item in a shopping cart, or purchase an item ("historical search actions"). Bowman 5:5-7; 9:6-9. Contrary to Appellants' argument (App. Br. 10), the query log taught by Bowman is not just for "other users," but includes the current user's transactions. See Bowman 5:5-7. Under a broad, yet reasonable, interpretation, we conclude claim 1 does not preclude retrieving historical search data of other users, along with the historical search data of the current user. For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claim 2, which is not separately argued. With respect to dependent claims 3-5, Appellants merely contend the additional reference used in the rejection of this claim (Lewallen) does not make up for the purported deficiencies Appellants argue are present in the rejection of independent claim 1. App. Br. 12-13. However, for the reasons discussed above, we find no deficiencies regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for the contested limitations of claim 1. As Appellants do not otherwise separately argue these claims with particularity, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3-5 for the reasons discussed supra. 3 The disputed limitation was previously recited in canceled dependent claim 6 and thus the Examiner's findings for this limitation are presented in the rejection for claim 6. Final Act. 15-16. 6 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 Issue B: Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8-10 In addition to arguing claim 8 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 (which we find unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra), Appellants further contend Bowman does not teach displaying group historical search actions as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 7- 8. Specifically, Appellants' argue that although Bowman describes processing the daily query logs, correlating terms, and presenting the query terms to a user, the query terms are not analogous to the claimed "historical search actions." App. Br. 12. We are also not persuaded by these arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bowman teaches a query log that includes group historical search actions. Final Act. 20 (citing Bowman 8: 66-9: 11 ). The cited sections of Bowman further describe the group historical search information from the query log can be extracted. Bowman 11 :26----'29. The cited sections of Bowman also teach displaying information helpful to a user in the search refinement process. Bowman 3 :29--42; 6: 19- 32. Given that Bowman explicitly teaches group historical search actions and displaying information useful in the search refinement process, Appellants do not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood these teachings could be predictably combined to teach or suggest displaying the historical search information. "[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, Appellants do not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art would 7 Appeal2014-003460 Application 13/531,148 have found "displaying" the group historical search actions in the query log to be uniquely challenging or difficult for one or ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8, and its dependent claims 9 and 10, which are not separately argued. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-10. 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 8