Ex Parte Widdowson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

11408855 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SIMON WIDDOWSON, CLAYTON BRIAN ATKINS, ULLAS GARGI, and PERE OBRADOR ____________ Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for searching or browsing data objects within a data-object library. See Abstract. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below with a certain disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A data-object-searching-and-perusal system comprising: data objects contained in a data-object library that provides data- object-access facilities that locate data objects based on data-object- access criteria; a presentation routine that electronically presents data objects; and a grazing routine that continuously selects data objects from a current sub-population of data objects defined by current data-object- access criteria for input to the presentation routine for presentation, receives user input that modifies the current data-object-access criteria, in turn modifying the current sub-population from which data-objects are selected for presentation, and automatically relaxes data-object-access criteria during periods without input, to expand the current sub-population of data objects from which data objects are selected for presentation. The Rejections The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Schuetze US 2003/0074369 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuetze. Ans. 3-15. 1 THE CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants argue among other things that Schuetze does not disclose a system with a grazing routine that 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 2, 2009, and the Reply Brief field December 2, 2009. Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 3 automatically relaxes the data-object-access criteria during periods without input. App. Br. 14, 18-19; Reply Br. 9-10. Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants argue the cited passages in Schuetze do not disclose: (1) data object selection and presentation to users on a continuous basis; (2) automated modification of data-object- selection criteria in order to broaden the subpopulation of data objects; and (3) an automated routine may reverse the narrowing of search criteria when a user fails to input data for a period of time. App. Br. 21-22. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Schuetze discloses: (1) a system with a grazing routine that automatically relaxes the data- object-access criteria during periods without input as recited in claim 1? (2) a method comprising iteratively (a) selecting a data object from the current sub-population; (b) presenting the selected data objects; and (c) modifying the current data-object-selection criteria, the modification elicited by input and automatically, by a grazing routine, following a period without input as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS Claims 1-10 Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, which calls for in pertinent part, a system with a grazing routine that automatically relaxes data-object-access criteria during periods without input. The Examiner maps this limitation to Figure Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 4 25 and paragraphs 0211-0216. Ans. 4. In the Response to Argument section, the Examiner further cites to Figures 13-14 and paragraphs 0026 and 0225. Upon review, we fail to find any of these passages disclose relaxing data-object-access criteria as recited. Schuetze’s paragraph 0026 describes a prior art technique for retrieving images. ¶ 0026. Here, the user selects an image most similar to what they are looking for and a search using the selected image as a query is performed repeatedly. Id. Schuetze’s prior art technique also discusses the user can specify features or criteria to search (e.g., color, texture, shape) and permits for feedback. Id. However, there is no discussion of relaxing the disclosed color, texture, or shape criteria during periods of inactivity. Schuetze’s Figures 13-14 and paragraphs 0211-0216 also do not describe relaxing criteria during periods of inactivity. Schuetze describes criteria (e.g., words, inlinks, outlinks, pages accessed, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)) used for a user cluster interested in Xerox® HomeCentre to search through documents and aggregate feature vectors. See ¶¶ 0211-212. Figures 12-13 show how browsing by the user can refine the images of interest by using one feature or criteria at a time. See ¶ 0149; Figs. 13-14. For example, Figures 12-13 shows a user entering query words (e.g., “ancient cathedral”) as a text criterion and refining the search by selecting different relevant boxes (e.g., 1226, 1320, 1322, 1324). See ¶¶ 0059-60, 0154-155, 0172-173; Figs. 13-14. Figure 14 shows the results of the refined query. See ¶¶ 0061, 0174; Fig. 14. While Schuetze uses the word “scatter” to perform the above-discussed search, Schuetze states that the search results from scattering are to refine the search into smaller clusters. See ¶ 00172. There Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 5 is no discussion in these passages of relaxing access criteria during periods without input as recited. Additionally, Schuetze discloses improving a web site design, such as by making recommendations at step 2526. See ¶¶ 0215- 216, 0225, 0228; Fig. 25. Yet, this also fails to disclose relaxing data- object-access criteria as recited. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 for similar reasons. Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 We reach the opposite conclusion for claims 11-17, 19, and 20. Notably, the scope of independent claim 11 differs from independent claim 1. For example, claim 11 has no limitation of automatically relaxing the data-object-selection criteria during periods without input but rather recites that the modification is elicited by input and automatically by the grazing routine following a period without input. Thus, giving the limitation, “the modification elicited by input and automatically, by a grazing routine, following a period without input,” its broadest reasonable construction, we construe claim 11 to require the modification to be automated following a period with no input, but not to require the relaxing criteria recited in claim 1. In other words, “modification” can include, among other things, both relaxing and refining. As another example, claim 11 recites iteratively – not continuously – selecting, presenting, and modifying. As such, some of Appellants’ arguments (e.g., Schuetze fails to disclose: (a) an automatic modification of data-object-selection criteria to broaden the subpopulation; (b) the process is carried out by a continuous presentation of data objects; Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 6 and (c) the automated routine may reverse the narrowing search criteria (see App. Br. 21-22)) are not commensurate in scope with claim 11. Concerning the remaining disputed limitations in claim 11, we find no error in the Examiner’s position. Ans. 9-10. Appellants dispute that Schuetze fails to disclose data object selection and presentation to users. We disagree. Paragraphs 0211-212 describe a technique for presenting clusters (e.g., text-based clusters). As explained above when discussing Figures 12-14, Schuetze discloses more detail of such a technique where a user selects a data object (e.g., by querying “ancient cathedral” the user selects data objects from a sub-population of the vectors stored in a database as the five returned text clusters) and presents the selected data objects (e.g., text clusters 1-5 in Fig. 12) to the user. See ¶¶ 0171-172; Fig. 12. Additionally, Figure 12 shows the user selecting the data object (e.g., text cluster 1 has been checked at box 1226) and also presenting the selected data object (e.g., displaying the text cluster 1 even after selecting the box and before pressing the “text cluster” button 1228). See Fig. 12. Since new text clusters 1-5 are presented to the user in Figure 13 as the result of selecting text cluster 1 and pressing text cluster button 1228 (¶ 0172), Schuetze’s original search query or criteria has been modified. See ¶ 0173; Fig. 13. Thus, Schuetze discloses modifying the current data-object- criteria and the sub-population of the data objects, and this modification is done using a computing device (e.g., program affiliated with a browser). The modification process is therefore automated. Additionally, Figure 13 shows the user then selecting and presenting further data objects (e.g., text clusters 1-3) and further modifying the criteria in an automated manner resulting in the image clusters in Figure 14. See ¶¶ 0173-174; Figs. 13-14. Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 7 Accordingly, Schuetze discloses an iterative – not continuous – process as recited. This process is similarly followed in Figures 15-18 (¶¶ 0175-177 querying “paper money”) and Figures 19-22 (¶¶ 0178-181 querying “pyramid egypt.”) We also note that the Examiner relied upon paragraph 0023, which describes a similar iterative process. See Ans. 18 (citing ¶ 0023). Furthermore, Appellants have not clearly defined “a period without input” as recited. See generally Specification; see also App. Br. 4 (citing to Spec. 14:11-17; 17:16-20; elements 922, 930 in Fig. 9B). Thus, given the phrase, “following a period without input,” its broadest reasonable construction, any elapsed length of time however small (e.g., seconds or less) can be mapped to the limitation, “following a period without input.” Since the modification is not instantaneous in Schuetze but takes time to process after a user input, Schuetze teaches the modification is elicited by input and automatically following a period of no input. Moreover, while Schuetze does not state this modification process is “a grazing routine,” identity of terminology is not required. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This phrase, “grazing routine,” has not been defined by Appellants (see generally Specification) or demonstrated to have a particular meaning to skilled artisans (see App. Br. 21-22). We therefore find, contrary to Appellants’ assertions (Reply Br. 5-6), that Schuetze’s process is a “grazing routine” as broadly as claimed. See also Ans. 18 (indicating the browsing and retrieval of documents is a grazing routine). Lastly, while not specifically addressed when discussing claim 11 (compare App. Br 21-22 with App. Br. 8-21; Reply Br. 1-5), we are not persuaded that a collection of documents or vectors within a database cannot Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 8 reasonably be mapped to the recited “data objects within a data-object library.” An ordinary understanding of a library includes “[a] collection of software or data files.” Microsoft® Computer Dictionary 309 (5th ed. 2002). Schuetze discloses a collection of documents (¶ 0077; Fig. 1) and feature vectors 112 for each document stored in a database (¶¶ 0078-79; Fig. 1), and documents in vector space are used to perform browsing and retrieval function on the collection (see ¶ 0036). See also Ans. 9 (citing ¶ 0036 when discussing the data objects in a data-object library). Given that both documents and feature vectors are data objects and are stored within a collection or database, we find that Schuetze discloses data objects within a data-object library as recited in claim 11’s preamble. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 11 and claims 12-17, 19, and 20, which are not separately argued. Claim 18 While not argued separately (see App. Br. 6-22), we further note that claim 18 includes a similar limitation to claim 1 reciting modifying the current data-object-selection criteria includes automatically relaxing the current data-object-selection criteria following a period without user input. Compare claim 1 with claim 18. The issue before us is the same as that in connection with claim 1, and we refer to our previous discussion. For the reasons stated previously, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 18. Appeal 2010-004145 Application 11/408,855 9 CONCLUSION Under § 102, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 18 but did not err in rejecting claims 11-17, 19, and 20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed-in-part. 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-IN-PART rwk