Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10953187 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 10/953,187 09/30/2004 Lee Wang MFCP.115015 1102 45809 7590 10/31/2012 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 2555 GRAND BOULEVARD KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613 EXAMINER LE, HUNG D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 LEE WANG and YING LI ____________________ Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 and 31-37.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Real Party in Interest is Microsoft Corporation. Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2009 (“App. Br.”). 2 Claims 6, 18 and 30 are cancelled and are not on appeal. Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ claims are generally directed to a system and method for automatic generation of search results based on local intention, in which a user’s desire for local or geographically focused information or results may be automatically assessed and factored into result selection and ordering. See generally Summary, Spec. ¶0006. Application FIG. 1, as reproduced below, is helpful in understanding the invention. FIG. 1 depicts a system for automatic generation of search results based on local intention As shown in FIG. 1, a user at a client 102 (e.g., PC or mobile device) inputs a set of search terms (search query) 104, via a user interface 112, for transmission to search service 106, via the Internet, in order to perform a search. See Spec. ¶¶0014-0015. A search service 106 is equipped with user Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 3 location information, via registration or subscription information provided by the user, and arranged to receive and analyze the user’s search query 104 in order to determine whether the user is seeking to obtain results related to local content, media or advertising, and to what degree that user may be seeking locality-selected content. Spec. ¶¶0015-0016. Search service 106 may include a locality engine 116 to analyze user’s local intent (based on user location), a local intent of the search query 104 (search terms) and/or a local intent of advertisements (hosted by content database 108) in order to generate a set of locality-selected results 110 for presentation to the user of client 102, via user interface 112. Spec. ¶0017. Representative Claim Claims 1, 13 and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A system for generating locality-selected search results, comprising: an input interface to receive a set of search terms for a user search; an interface to a content store, the content store storing locality-specific content; and a locality engine, communicating with the input interface and the interface to the content store, the locality engine processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search prior to performing a search using the terms, wherein the local intent is a quantitative assessment of the degree to which the user search reflects a probability of user interest in having locality-specific results returned or having results returned without regard to location, and generate locality- specific search results based on at least a match of the locality- Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 4 specific content with a location of the user and the local intent of the search. Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Herz U.S. 6,029,195 Feb. 22, 2000 MacGregor U.S. 2002/0087522 A1 July 4, 2002 Luis Gravano et al., Categorizing Web Queries According to Geographical Locality, Columbia University, AMC, 2003, pages 1-9 (“Gravano”). Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-24 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacGregor and Gravano (Ans. 3-14); and (2) Claims 25-29 and 31-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacGregor, Gravano, and Herz (Ans. 14-23). Appellants’ Contentions (1) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-24 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of MacGregor and Gravano because: (a) Gravano does not disclose or suggest the feature of “processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search prior to performing a search using the terms” as recited in independent claims 1 and 13 (emphasis added). App. Br. 13-16. Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 5 (b) MacGregor and Gravano do not disclose that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent is based on “at least one of an exact match and a partial match of the set of search terms” as recited in claims 9 and 21 (emphasis added). App. Br. 16. (c) MacGregor and Gravano do not disclose that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent is based on “a function of at least one of a frequency of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, a separation of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, and a positional tree of locality identifiers in the set of search terms” as recited in claims 10 and 22 (emphasis added). App. Br. 16. (2) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25-29 and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz because: (a) MacGregor, Gravano and Herz do not disclose or suggest the feature “determining whether a user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area or search results to be returned without regard to any geographic area,” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added). App. Br. 20-21. (b) MacGregor, Gravano and Herz do not disclose or suggest the feature that “if the user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area,” then “determining the extent to which the user desires local search results to be returned based at least in part on the set of search terms, clicked results associated with the search terms, and related search terms,” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added). App. Br. 21. Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 6 II. ISSUES The issues on appeal are: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano discloses or suggests “a locality engine … processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search prior to performing a search using the terms,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 13 (emphasis added)? (2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano discloses or suggests that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent is based on “at least one of an exact match and a partial match of the set of search terms,” as recited in claims 9 and 21 (emphasis added)? (3) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano discloses or suggests that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent is based on “a function of at least one of a frequency of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, a separation of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, and a positional tree of locality identifiers in the set of search terms,” as recited in claims 10 and 22 (emphasis added)? (4) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz discloses or suggests the feature of “determining whether a user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area or search results to be returned without regard to any geographic area,” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added)? (5) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz discloses or suggests the feature that “if the Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 7 user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area,” then “determining the extent to which the user desires local search results to be returned based at least in part on the set of search terms, clicked results associated with the search terms, and related search terms,” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added)? III. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the final Office Action mailed January 8, 2009, and (2) the detailed findings and responses set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight for emphasis the following: §103 Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-24 and 37 over MacGregor and Gravano With respect to independent claims 1 and 13, Appellants contend that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano fails to disclose or suggest the feature of “processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search prior to performing a search using the terms” as recited in independent claims 1 and 13 (emphasis added). App. Br. 13-16; Ans. 25. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 8 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During examination, claim terms must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In construing the claims, we are guided by Appellants’ Specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (noting that the Specification is the single best guide to a disputed term’s meaning and acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms recited in the claims). Appellants do not expressly define the phrase: “processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search prior to performing a search using the terms” in the Specification. First, we find that claim 1 merely recites “processing the search terms to analyze a local intent of the search.” Therefore, determining the localization by performing additional partial search, which is done prior to performing the actual search, is not precluded by the claim. As a result, the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation is reasonable and is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, particularly in the context of the content delivery flow shown in Appellants’ Figure 2 where “past clicked results” of the user query are used for locality and location matching by the locality engine 116. See Spec. ¶0015 and ¶¶0040-0041. In addition, Gravano teaches that the classification is predicated as either local or global “on a sample of results actually returned for a given query rather than the words in the query itself,” and that “the classifier can infer the type of the query (global or local) so that the results can be appropriately filtered or re-ordered, or the query modified.” See §4.1, TABLE 3 and §6 for improving search results. As such, and given its “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the specification, we Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 9 agree with the Examiner (Ans. 25) that the disputed limitation of independent claims 1 and 13 reads on Gravano’s method of categorizing user queries according to their geographical locality by way of classifiers used to analyze the geographic locality of user queries and users. With respect to dependent claims 9 and 21, Appellants argue that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano does not disclose that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent is based on “at least one of an exact match and a partial match of the set of search terms” as recited in claims 9 and 21 (emphasis added). App. Br. 16; Ans. 26. However, we disagree. As noted by the Examiner, MacGregor utilizes a search engine server to search its geographical contents and provide a list of vendors that include the product or service that is characterized (i.e., matched) by the search term. See ¶0036 and ¶0071 of MacGregor; Ans. 6, 12, 26. With respect to dependent claims 10 and 22, Appellants argue that the combination of MacGregor and Gravano does not disclose that the analysis of the search terms for a local intent based on “a function of at least one of a frequency of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, a separation of locality identifiers in the set of search terms, and a positional tree of locality identifiers in the set of search terms” as recited in claims 10 and 22 (emphasis added). App. Br. 16; Ans. 26. However, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As noted by the Examiner, MacGregor utilizes a search engine server to analyze the local intent based on the user’s input of location information. See ¶0066 and FIG. 7, step 704 of MacGregor; Ans. 6-7, 12, 27. With respect to dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-24 and 37, Appellants present no separate arguments for patentability of these Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 10 claims. App. Br. 1 and 4. As such, claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, 23- 24 and 37 fall with independent claims 1 and 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). In view of these reasons and explanations, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-24 and 37. §103 Rejection of Claims 25-29 and 31-36 over MacGregor, Gravano and Herz With respect to independent claim 25, Appellants contend that the combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz does not disclose or suggest the feature “determining whether a user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area or search results to be returned without regard to any geographic area” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added). App. Br. 21; Ans. 27. However, we disagree. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Gravano categorizes his classification as either local or global. If the query is after “global” information, search results are returned without regard to any geographic area. Conversely, if the query is after “local” information, then search results are returned based on a geographic area. See §1:2, page 2 of Gravano; Ans. 15-16. Appellants further argue that the combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz does not disclose or suggest the feature that “if the user desires local search results to be returned based on a geographic area,” then “determining the extent to which the user desires local search results to be returned based at least in part on the set of search terms, clicked results associated with the search terms, and related search terms” as recited in claim 25 (emphasis added). App. Br. 21; Ans. 27. Appeal 2010-006089 Application 10/953,187 11 Again, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As previously discussed by the Examiner, Gravano discloses that queries can be classified as either local or global. See §4.1, page 3 of Gravano; Ans. 25. According to Gravano, if no locations are present in the query, the query results can be localized to the geographical area of the user issuing the query. See §6 of Gravano; Ans. 27. In view of these reasons and explanations, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 25-29 and 31-36. IV. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-24 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of MacGregor and Gravano, and (2) claims 25-29 and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of MacGregor, Gravano and Herz. V. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-29 and 31-37 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc