Ex Parte Gibbs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

10987769 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte KEVIN A. GIBBS
____________

Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 2, 4, 5, 8 – 28, 30, 31, 33 – 52, 54, 55, and 57 – 79.
1
We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 29, 32, 53, and 56 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to search engines for locating
documents in a computer network, and in particular, to a system and method
for speeding up a desired search by anticipating a user’s request in languages
that include non-phonetic symbols. Spec. ¶ [0002]. Independent claim 2 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:

2. A computer-implemented method for suggesting query
completions for a language having ideographs and phonetic
characters, comprising:
on a search engine having one or more processors and
memory storing programs executed by the one or more
processors:
prior to a search requestor signaling completion of a
query:
receiving a partial query from the search requestor, the
partial query comprising one or more Asian language
ideographs followed by at least one phonetic character;
obtaining a set of predicted complete queries
corresponding to the partial query from complete queries
submitted by a community of users, the set of predicted
complete queries ordered in accordance with a ranking criteria,
the set of predicted complete queries including a plurality of
complete queries that each includes at least one character or
ideograph added to the partial query, wherein at least one of the
predicted complete queries contains one or more Asian
language ideographs that are not contained in the partial query;
and
conveying the set of ordered predicted queries to the
search requestor.

Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

3
REJECTION
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8 – 28, 30, 31, 33 – 52, 54, 55, and 57 – 79 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunn (US
7,293,231 B1) and Ortega (US 6,564,213 B1). Ans. 4 – 30.

ISSUES
Independent Claims 2, 28, 52, and 78
1) Did the Examiner err in determining that Gunn teaches
“receiving a partial query from the search requestor, the partial query
comprising one or more Asian language ideographs followed by at least one
phonetic character,” as recited in independent claim 2, and commensurately
recited in independent claims 28, 52, and 78?
2) Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of
Gunn and Ortega teaches “wherein at least one of the predicted complete
queries contains one or more Asian language ideographs that are not
contained in the partial query,” as recited in independent claim 2, and
commensurately recited in independent claims 28, 52, and 78?

Dependent claims 5, 31, and 55
Did the Examiner err in determining that Gunn teaches “at least one
incomplete phonetic sequence representing at least one Asian language
ideograph,” as recited in claim 5, and commensurately recited in claims 31
and 55?

Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

4
Dependent claims 21, 22, 48, 71, and 72
Did the Examiner err in determining that Gunn “mapping strings of
one or more Asian language ideographs from a plurality of historical queries
into one or more representations that include a string of one or more
phonetic characters,” as recited in claim 21, and commensurately recited in
claims 22, 48, 71, and 72?

ANALYSIS

Independent Claims 2, 28, 52, and 78
1) First Issue
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Gunn’s teachings
are limited to one language and one type of character set at a time and,
therefore, that Gunn does not teach a partial query comprising one or more
Asian language ideographs followed by at least one phonetic character.
App. Br. 14. Appellant’s argument pertains to a description of data included
in the query, i.e., one or more Asian language ideographs followed by at
least one phonetic character. The particular data contained in the partial
query does not affect the functionality of the other elements recited in the
claim, such as receiving the partial query, obtaining a set of predicted
complete queries wherein at least one of the predicted complete queries
contains data not contained in the partial query, and conveying the set or
ordered predicted queries. Thus, the description of data included in the
query represents no more than non-functional descriptive material, which is
not entitled to patentable weight in the analysis of the claim with respect to
the prior art. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008)
Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

5
(precedential); see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As a result, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Gunn teaches “receiving a partial query from the search
requestor, the partial query comprising one or more Asian language
ideographs followed by at least one phonetic character,” as recited in
independent claim 2.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gunn teaches
the disputed limitation because the Japanese language inherently has
combinations of characters and symbols. Ans. 32. With respect to
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s assertion regarding the Japanese
language is unsupported (Reply Br. 6), we observe that Appellant
acknowledges, “Japanese uses a mix of writing systems and includes Kanji,
Kana, Romaji, Arabic Numerals and Chinese Numerals.” Spec. ¶[0093].
Appellant further acknowledges that Kana are phonetic characters and Kanji
are characters or ideographs. Spec. ¶¶[0093] – [0094]. Therefore, Appellant
has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Gunn teaches
“receiving a partial query from the search requestor, the partial query
comprising one or more Asian language ideographs followed by at least one
phonetic character,” as recited in independent claim 2, and commensurately
recited in independent claims 28, 52, and 78.
2) Second Issue
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that adding one or
more ideographs to the end of the claimed partial query would produce
gibberish. App. Br. 18. Appellant further argues by way of an example, not
found in Gunn, but instead based on a modified one of the examples
provided in Figure 16 of Appellant’s Specification. App. Br. 18. Although
Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

6
Appellant is able to create an example of a combination of Asian ideographs
and phonetics that Appellant argues is gibberish (App. Br. 18), an example
also could be created of an entirely phonetic completion candidate that is
gibberish. Additionally, Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by
objective evidence. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence
lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1997).
As discussed supra with respect to the first issue, the candidate
prediction system of Gunn operates using the Japanese language and the
Japanese language inherently has combinations of characters and symbols
(Ans. 5, 31 – 32 (citing Gunn col. 8, ll. 61-67)). Furthermore, as the
Examiner correctly finds, Gunn teaches weighting completion candidates
based on a dictionary and/or common usage (Ans. 5, 31 (citing Gunn col. 9,
ll. 47-51, 64-67, col. 10, ll. 1-12)), which would obtain completion
candidates that are not gibberish. Thus, as the Examiner correctly finds,
Gunn teaches this disputed limitation by teaching a candidate prediction
system that obtains completion candidates in Japanese, including characters
not within the partial text entry entered by the user (Ans. 5, 31 (citing Gunn
col. 9, ll. 47-51, 64-67, col. 10, ll. 1-12)).
Additionally, Appellant acknowledges, “Japanese text is commonly
entered into a computer by entering a Kana phonetic representation for one
or more Kanji characters which is then converted into a Kanji
representation.” Spec. ¶[0094]. Thus, the Japanese language completion
candidate of Gunn may include a converted Kanji representation, not
contained in the partial query. For this additional reason, Gunn teaches or
suggests “wherein at least one of the predicted complete queries contains
one or more Asian language ideographs that are not contained in the partial
Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

7
query,” as recited in independent claim 2, and commensurately recited in
independent claims 28, 52, and 78.
Because we agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the two
limitations of the independent claims that are disputed by Appellant,
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 2, 28, 52, and 78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain that rejection.

Dependent Claims 4, 8 – 20, 23 – 27, 30, 33 – 47, 49 – 51, 54, 57 – 70,
73 – 77, and 79
Appellant has not separately argued claims 4, 8 – 20, 23 – 27, 30, 33 –
47, 49 – 51, 54, 57 – 70, 73 – 77, and 79, each of which depend from one
of independent claims 2, 28, 52, and 78. App. Br. 12, 22. Thus, for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to the independent claims, Appellant
has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4, 8 – 20, 23 – 27, 30, 33 – 47, 49 – 51, 54, 57 – 70, 73 – 77, and 79.
Accordingly, we sustain that rejection.

Dependent Claims 5, 31, and 55
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the completion
candidates of Gunn must begin with the current partial text entry so Gunn
does not teach an “at least one incomplete phonetic sequence representing at
least one Asian language ideograph,” as recited in claim 5, and
commensurately recited in claims 31 and 55. App. Br. 20. As discussed
supra with respect to independent claim 2, Gunn’s candidate prediction
system searches Japanese character sets (Ans. 33 (citing Gunn col. 8, ll. 35 –
Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

8
40)) and Japanese text is commonly entered into a computer by entering
phonetic representations for one or more Kanji characters, which is then
converted into a Kanji representation (Spec. ¶[0094]). Thus, Gunn teaches
searching Japanese phonetic character sets that represent at least one
Japanese language ideograph. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 31, and 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) and, therefore, we sustain that rejection.

Dependent Claims 21, 22, 48, 71, and 72
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Gunn describes a
digital keyboard, but not the claimed method for mapping historical queries
into representations. App. Br. 21. As the Examiner correctly finds, Gunn
teaches ranking completion candidates using weight values, which in
accordance with one embodiment represent a degree of common or
historical usage (Ans. 5 – 6 (citing Gunn col. 9, ll. 47-51, ll. 64-67, col. 10,
ll. 1-12)). Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Gunn teaches “mapping strings of one or more Asian language
ideographs from a plurality of historical queries into one or more
representations that include a string of one or more phonetic characters,” as
recited in claim 21, and commensurately recited in claims 22, 48, 71, and 72.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21, 22, 48, 71, and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and,
therefore, we sustain that rejection.

Appeal 2011-002626
Application 10/987,769

9
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 8 – 28, 30, 31,
33 – 52, 54, 55, and 57 – 79 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD