Matthew Peterson

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020000275 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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. 13/670,307 11/06/2012 Matthew E. Peterson 94866-854347 (000110US) 2359 20350 7590 05/26/2021 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP - West Coast Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER ELLIS, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2152 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW E. PETERSON ____________ Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–14, 17–22, and 26–31, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Matthew E. Peterson as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “computer-facilitated information processing.” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, [r]ecurring search automation with search event detection is enabled. Relevant search events may be detected . . . . Responsive to detection of such search events and/or user triggering, a recurring search may be generated. The recurring search may be based on the detected search event . . . . The recurring search may be associated with a recurrence schedule. Search results may be generated by performing the recurring search in accordance with the recurrence schedule. Data corresponding to the generated search results may be provided . . . . The relevant search events may be detected by a search detection module . . . . The recurring searches may be maintained by recurring search management module and/or recurring search service. Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for recurring search automation, the method comprising: automatically identifying, by a processor, a search user interface component of a user interface in accordance with a search user interface component identification heuristic, the search user interface component identification heuristic comprising: determining a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component of the user interface with respect to a plurality of user interactions with the search user interface component of the user interface, wherein the probabilistic correlation exceeds a threshold; causing to be detected, by the processor and the search user interface component, the search event associated with a search performed with the user interface and with respect to a Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 3 search engine and wherein the search event is not explicitly identified to the processor as associated with the search user interface component of the user interface; responsive to the detection of the search event, generating, by the processor and the user interface, a recurring search based at least in part on information about the detected search event, the recurring search being associated with a recurrence schedule and being distinct from the detected search event performed with the user interface; generating, by the processor, search results at least in part by causing performance of the recurring search according to the associated recurrence schedule; and providing, by the processor, data corresponding to at least a portion of the generated search results for presentation. References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 3, 11, 17– 20, 27 103(a)3 Plow (US 2008/0091661 A1, Apr. 17, 2008), Cragun (US 2010/0306366 A1, Dec. 2, 2010 ), Grechanik (US 2009/0217309 A1, Aug. 27, 2009) 5–7, 12–13 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Gross (US 2006/0248078 A1, Nov. 2, 2006) 8–10 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Sabiers (US 2004/0181596 A1, Sep. 16, 2004) 14 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Gross, Will (US 2014/0012841 A1, Jan. 9, 2014) 21–22 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Al-Abdulqader (US 2007/0016514 A1, Jan. 18, 2007) 26, 28, 31 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Liang (US 2006/0106793 A1, May 18, 2006) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Feb. 8, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Nov. 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 12, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated Oct. 15, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 3 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejection. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 4 29–30 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Liang, Pletter (US 2011/0276946 A1, Nov. 10, 2011)4 ANALYSIS Obviousness5 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Plow and Cragun collectively teach automatically identifying, by a processor, a search user interface component of a user interface in accordance with a search user interface component identification heuristic, the search user interface component identification heuristic comprising: determining a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component of the user interface with respect to a plurality of user interactions with the search user interface component of the user interface, wherein the probabilistic correlation exceeds a threshold; as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 4– 5. The Examiner does not provide findings about the “automatically identifying . . .” limitation, which includes the claimed “a search user 4 The headings of dependent-claim rejections omit Cragun and/or Grechanik. Final Act. 15, 19, 21–23, 25. The omissions appear to be typographical errors, as the claims depend from independent claims, which are rejected over Plow, Cragun, and Grechanik. Final Act. 4. 5 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 5 interface component identification heuristic.” With respect to the determining limitation, the Examiner finds: Paragraphs [0038] and [0041] of Cragun were used to teach the “a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component[,]” which is before the limitation clarifying that a threshold is used as a probabilistic correlation. Therefore, Grechanik isn’t being used to teach “a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component.” Instead Grechanik is used to teach the threshold which can be used as a probabilistic measurement . . . . Grechanik is used solely for adding the feature of determining a GUI element based on a similarity threshold set through the interface, and paragraph [0115] matches GUI elements with a threshold matching technique. Ans. 6–7 (original emphasis omitted; emphases added); see also Final Act. 6. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. See Appeal Br. 15– 16; Reply Br. 4–5. Claim 1 recites in part (emphases added): automatically identifying, by a processor, a search user interface component of a user interface in accordance with a search user interface component identification heuristic, the search user interface component identification heuristic comprising: determining a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component of the user interface with respect to a plurality of user interactions with the search user interface component of the user interface, wherein the probabilistic correlation exceeds a threshold. While the Specification does not specifically define “probabilistic,” that term appears once in the Specification: Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 6 While some search events may be detected with non- probabilistic matching to templates, in accordance with at least one embodiment of the invention, other search events may be detected with one or more heuristics. Spec. ¶ 28. Because claim 1 requires “the search user interface component identification heuristic comprising: determining a probabilistic correlation . . . the probabilistic correlation exceeds a threshold,” and paragraph 28 draws a distinction between non-probabilistic matching and heuristics, we interpret the term “probabilistic correlation” to exclude non-probabilistic matching. Because the cited Cragun paragraphs describe non-probabilistic matching (Cragun ¶ 41 (“[t]he RP Program 124 may identify common elements that match predefined HTML patterns”)), the Examiner has not shown the cited prior art teaches automatically identifying, by a processor, a search user interface component of a user interface in accordance with a search user interface component identification heuristic, the search user interface component identification heuristic comprising: determining a probabilistic correlation between a search event and the search user interface component of the user interface with respect to a plurality of user interactions with the search user interface component of the user interface, wherein the probabilistic correlation exceeds a threshold; as required by claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 4–5. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 7, 20, and 27 for similar reasons. Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 7 We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8–14, 17–19, 21, 22, 26, and 28–31.6 Although the Examiner cites additional references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5–14, 17– 22, and 26–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 11, 17–20, 27 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik 1, 3, 11, 17– 20, 27 5–7, 12–13 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Gross 5–7, 12–13 8–10 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Sabiers 8–10 14 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Gross, Will 14 21–22 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Al-Abdulqader 21–22 26, 28, 31 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Liang 26, 28, 31 6 Appellant does not appeal the rejections of claims 28–31 (Appeal Br. 6). However, 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) states: “An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.” Therefore, claims 28–31 are before us, and we reverse the rejections of such claims for judicial efficiency. Appeal 2020-000275 Application 13/670,307 8 29–30 103(a) Plow, Cragun, Grechanik, Liang, Pletter 29–30 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5–14, 17–22, 26– 31 REVERSED