Ex Parte Dunning et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

09846823 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TED E. DUNNING and BRADLEY D. KINDIG
____________

Appeal 2010-006361
Application 09/846,823
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 97. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-006361
Application 09/846,823

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of discovering
relationships between items, comprising:
accepting, in a computer, item selections detected
from a plurality of users;
generating, in the computer, a log for each user,
each log containing identifiers corresponding to detected
user item selections;
accepting, in the computer, a query including at
least one query item identifier;
scoring, in the computer, each of the user logs, the
scoring for each user log being responsive to a frequency
of occurrence of the at least one query item identifier in
the user log, a frequency of occurrence of the at least one
query item identifier in all of the user logs and a query
weight for the at least one query item identifier in the
query, so as to generate a user log score for each user log
based exclusively on detected user item selections and
the at least one query item;
determining, in the computer, at least one result
item, responsive to the scoring of each user log, so as to
discover at least one relationship based exclusively on
detected user item selections and the at least one query
item.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4-14, 17-27, 32, 33, 39, 42-45, 48-59, 62-72, 75-85, 91 and 92
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hosken ‘579 (US
6,438,579 B1, iss. Aug. 20, 2002).
2. Claims 2, 3, 28-31, 34-38, 40, 41, 60, 61, 86-90 and 93-97 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hosken ‘579 and Lazarus (US
6,430,539 B1, iss. Aug. 6, 2002).
3. Claims 15, 16, 46, 47, 73 and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hosken ‘579 and Ward (US 6,526,411 B1, iss. Feb. 25.
Appeal 2010-006361
Application 09/846,823

3
2003).

ANALYSIS
We note at the outset that the instant application has an effective filing
date of May 3, 2000. The Examiner has rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Hosken ‘579, filed on July 15, 2000. Appellants argue that the
only way Hosken ‘579 is prior art to the present application is by its reliance
on the provisional application, 60/144,377 (hereafter “Hosken ‘377”) filed
on July 16, 1999. The Examiner admits that in order for Hosken to be
considered prior art to the claims of the present application, there must be a
showing to establish that Hosken ‘377 provides full support , in compliance
with 35 U.S.C. § 112, for the subject matter of Hosken relied upon (Ans.
10).

Claims 1 to 33 and 39 to 92

We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. We
agree with the Appellants that Hosken ‘377 does not disclose a user log that
is responsive to a frequency of occurrence of the at least one query item in
the user log. The Examiner directs our attention to Hosken ‘377 at page 8
and lines 14 to 25 for disclosing this subject matter. We find that this
portion of Hosken ‘377 discloses that a user may enter music selections and
ratings using a form style interface or that the system may derive implicit
ratings of music items based on the system’s observations of the user’s
actions. The system may also make recommendations related to the style of
music selected. There is no disclosure of a user log that is responsive to a
frequency of occurrence of at least one music item or query item.
Appeal 2010-006361
Application 09/846,823

4
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2 to 33 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 39 to 58 and 59 to 92 which contain the same or similar
recitations.
Claims 34 and 93
We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 34. The Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Hosken and Lazarus. The Examiner
finds that Hosken ‘579 discloses the bulk of the subject matter of claim 34
but recognizes that Hosken’ 579 does not disclose determining a log
likelihood ratio. The Examiner relies on Lazarus for this teaching. The
Examiner does not show that Hosken ‘377 provides support for the subject
that is relied on in Hosken ‘579. As such, we agree with the Appellants that
the Examiner has not established that Hosken ‘377 discloses the method of
discovering a relationship between a first item and a second item comprising
the specific steps recited in claim 34. The Examiner has not addressed how
the teachings of Hosken ‘377, render the subject matter of claims 34 and 93
unpatentable. As such we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
34 and 93 and claims 35 to 38 and 94 to 97 dependent thereon.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

mls