Ex Parte Kirkby et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201812296208 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/296,208 12/07/2010 Stephen Denis Kirkby 79340 7590 06/04/2018 MANNA VA & KANG, P.C. 3201 Jermantown Road SUITE 525 FAIRFAX, VA 22030 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. D07-167/01995-00/US 5384 EXAMINER OHBA, MELLISSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): ASHOKM@MANNA V AKANG.COM docketing@mannavakang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN DENIS KIRKBY and PETER KELLETT Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, 17, and 18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Accenture Global Services Limited, established under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally "provides a method of validating results of a host search engine, said method including the steps of scanning all data objects deliverable via a web interface and executing a matching engine to generate a report set containing content missed by said host search engine." Spec. 2:26-30. 2 Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below ( with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics): 1. A method of validating results of a host search engine, said method including the steps of: scanning, by a scanning engine, web pages of a web-site; an exterior image sensor for capturing a first image directed externally of the vehicle with a first field of view; identifying, from the scanning, data objects including words on the web pages of the web-site; indexing, by an index engine executed by a processor, the data objects identified in the web pages of the web-site, wherein the index of the data objects includes the web pages of the web- site associated with the data objects; validating the indexing of the data objects, wherein the validating comprises: determining, by the index engine, unique words from the index of the data objects by implementing a density analysis to find words in the index that have a low frequency of 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed July 13, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Jan. 17, 2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief filed July 12, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 17, 2017 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed Oct. 6, 2008 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 occurrence on the web pages compared to other words on the web pages and identifying the low-frequency words as the unique words; inserting the unique words determined from the index of the data objects into a search field of a host search engine, wherein the host search engine generates a search result, including web pages of the web-site, based on the inserted unique words; receiving the search result including the web pages located by the host search engine; comparing, by a matching engine executed by the processor, the web pages located by the host search engine to a set of web pages recorded in the index of the data objects from which the unique words were determined; based on the comparison, identifying web pages of the web-site recorded in the index that are not located by the host search engine; and generating a report containing the web pages that were not located by said host search engine. App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App'x). Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Amitay et al. (US 2007 /0265999 A 1; published Nov. 15, 2007) ("Amitay"), Troyanova et al. (US 2002/0022955 Al; published Feb. 21, 2002) ("Troyanova"), and Dey et al. (US 2003/0061028 Al; published Mar. 27, 2003) ("Dey"). Claims 4---6, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Amitay, Troyanova, Dey, and Dogl et al. (US 2004/0103090 Al; published May 27, 2004) ("Dogl"). 3 Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 ANALYSIS The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' arguments is whether the combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey teaches or suggests based on the comparison, identifying web pages of the web-site recorded in the index that are not located by the host search engme, as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 15. The Examiner finds the combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey teaches or suggests the validating step of claim 1 "that comprises the steps of determining, inserting, receiving, comparing, identifying, and generating a report." Ans. 2-6. The Examiner finds that Amitay teaches "a 'utility' that monitors and analyzes the search engine and even search results in order to make sure the best possible results have been found and presented." Ans. 4, 9; see also, Final Act. 4 (citing Amitay ,r,r 27, 28, 72, 85). Specifically, the Examiner finds paragraph 72 of Amitay "discloses identifying [ reporting] 'missing' content and the 'utility' is read on the 'matching engine."' Ans. 9. The Examiner also finds that Amitay teaches web crawling or scanning webpages to create an index comprising "data object[ s] and website associated [with] the data object[ s]." Ans. 4 ( citing Amitay Abstract, ,r,r 3- 5, 7, 9-12, 24--26). The Examiner finds that Troyanova teaches synonym extension of search queries with validation of an index. Ans. 4 ( citing Troyanova Abstract). In particular, the Examiner finds Troyanova teaches "generating lists { read on index} that are used in the validation module and the validation model can form a list of validated action objects from the list 4 Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 SAO KB." 3 Ans. 4 (citing Troyanova ,r,r 42, 43, 65). The Examiner further finds that the "validation module of Troyanova performs the steps that are disclosed in claim 1 for 'validating the indexing of data objects,' with the exception of specifically stating that the search results include web pages," which are taught by Amitay. Ans. 7. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In particular, we agree with Appellants' argument that paragraph 72 of Amitay fails to teach or suggest the limitation "based on the comparison, identifying web pages of the web-site recorded in the index that are not located by the host search engine." Reply Br. 9; see also, App. Br. 12-13. Paragraph 72 of Amitay explains that the content estimation component is used "for identifying missing content," such as "a list of topics which interest users but are not covered by the indexed documents." However, as Appellants' argue, and we agree, this paragraph teaches the content estimation component identifies topics of interest to users that are not covered by the index. Reply Br. 9. Accordingly, Appellants argue, and we agree, "[t]hus, the topics not covered by the indexed documents, as mentioned in Amitay, are not web pages not located by a search engine, as recited in claim 1." Id. Based on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Amitay, Troyanova, and Dey teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claims 1, 11, and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain 3 Troyanova explains that "SAO KB" is an acronym for Subject-Action- Object Knowledge Database and that it is prepared from natural language texts with the help of a semantic processor. See Troyanova ,r 7. 5 Appeal2017-009810 Application 12/296,208 the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, and 15, as well as dependent claims 3-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18, under§ 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation