Ex Parte CHANDRA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201512878042 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/878,042 09/09/2010 22879 7590 12/16/2015 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Praphul CHANDRA 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. 82261496 4272 EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2015 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRAPHUL CHANDRA and GEETHA MANJUNATH Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to searching a task-based web interaction. Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method of searching a task- based web interaction, comprising: providing a task-based web interaction search query to a search engine; obtaining search results from the search engine; classifying search results into a set of information parameters, wherein the set of information parameters relates to the task-based web interaction provided in the search query; comparing the information parameters against a repository containing multiple sets of information parameters, wherein each set of information parameters corresponds to a task-based web interaction, to identify at least one task-based web interaction corresponding to the set of information parameters related to the task-based web interaction provided in the search query; and presenting the at least one identified task-based web interaction. 3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the classifying classifies the search results into a keyword information parameter and a uniform resource location information parameter. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-8 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Agrawal (US 2011/0035402 Al; Feb. 10, 2011). Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Agrawal and Herlocker (US 2009/0157617 Al; June 18, 2009). 2 Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "comparing the information parameters against a repository containing multiple sets of information parameters" (hereinafter the "comparing" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? B) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "providing the at least one uniform resource locator as a search query to a search engine" (hereinafter the "providing" limitation), as recited in dependent claim 2? C) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "wherein the classifying classifies the search results into a keyword information parameter and a uniform resource location information parameter," as recited in dependent claim 3? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14, and 15 are in error. Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has failed to establish that claims 3 and 13 are unpatentable over the cited prior art. Issue A: Claims 1, 4-11, 14, and 15 Appellants contend Agrawal does not disclose the "comparing" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 4--8. In particular, Appellants argue "assuming that the 'related URL data' of Agrawal is the 'set of information parameters,' Agrawal does not ... compare the related URLs against a repository containing multiple sets of information parameters." Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 7-8. Appellants further argue 3 Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 "[a]smnming that the text from a web page in search results is somehow being construed as 'the information parameters' recited in claim 1, Agrawal does not disclose classifying search results into the text." Reply Br. 7-8. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Agrawal discloses that search results from a query are associated (classified) with distinct URLs. Final Act. 6 (citing Agrawal i-f 66). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Agrawal discloses comparing the URL data (of the initial search results) with other URL data which has been populated and indexed. Ans. 3 (citing Agrawal i-f 67); see also Final Act. 6. In other words, it is the initial obtained search results which are classified into URLs (information parameters). Agrawal i-f 66. We observe that Appellants' Specification also similarly describes classifying search results into URLs (information parameters) of various sites. Spec. 5. The cited portions of Agrawal further disclose using the search results as an index into compiied reiated URL data (compare information parameters against repository containing multiple sets of information parameters). Agrawal i-f 67. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Agrawal discloses the "comparing" limitation. Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 11 and 14, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10); and (3) dependent claims 4--8 and 15, which are not separately argued. With respect to dependent claims 9 and 10, Appellants merely contend the additional reference used in the rejections of these claims (Herlocker) does not make up for the purported deficiencies Appellants 4 Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 argue are present in the rejection of independent claim 1. App. Br. 13. As Appellants do not otherwise separately argue these claims with particularity, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 9 and 10 for the reasons discussed supra. Issue B: Claims 2 and 12 Appellants contend Agrawal does not disclose the "providing" limitation. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 9--10. Specifically, Appellants argue Agrawal does not describe providing the related URL, which is equated by the Examiner to be the extracted URL, as a search query to a search engine. Reply Br. 9. We disagree. As the Appellants note, the Examiner finds "the extracted URL is disclosed in paragraph 28 of Agrawal," which "discloses identifying a related URL for a task oriented search query." App. Br. 10; see Final Act. 7. However, contrary to Appellants' argument that Agrawal does not disclose the reiated URL is provided as a search query to a search engine, the cited paragraph of Agrawal further discloses tools (search engine) are provided which search the content pointed to by those URLs (providing URL as search query to search associated content). Agrawal i-f 28. Therefore, we determine the Examiner did not err in finding Agrawal discloses the "providing" limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 2 and claim 12, which is grouped with claim 2 (App. Br. 10). Issue C: Claims 3 and 13 Claim 3 recites "wherein the classifying classifies the search results into a keyword information parameter and a uniform resource location information parameter." The Examiner finds Agrawal discloses this 5 Appeal2014-001359 Application 12/878,042 limitation because Agrawal teaches search results categorized according to associated URLs and keyword associations. Ans. 5 (citing Agrawal i-fi-1 70, 106). Appellants argue that the classifying recited in claim 3 must be consistent with the Examiner's interpretation of "classifying search results" set forth in parent claim 1. App. Br. 11. We agree. The cited sections of Agrawal do not describe that the initial search results (equated to be the "search results" recited in claim 1) are classified into URLs and keywords. See Agrawal i-fi-1 70, 106. Accordingly, Appellants persuade us the Examiner did not establish Agrawal discloses the limitation recited in claim 3 and, therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) rejection of claim 3 and claim 13, which contains a substantially similar limitation. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14, and 15. We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 3 and 13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ACP 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation