Ex Parte KLAPAFTIS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13922852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/922,852 06/20/2013 IOANNIS KLAPAFTIS
45809 7590 03/29/2019
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
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.
338529-US-NP/MFCP.181717 5167
EXAMINER
TZENG, FENG-TZER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IO ANNIS KLAP AFTIS and ANTONINO GULLI
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-27. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Sauls (US 2010/0333000 Al; Dec. 30, 2010), Thomas (US
2007/0073713 Al; Mar. 29, 2007), and Schachter (US 2007/0185844 Al;
Aug. 9, 2007). Final Act. 5-14.
Claims 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Sauls and Thomas. Final Act. 14--24.
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "mining web content for synonyms
for selected words and/or phrases and presenting such web-based synonyms
in the context of applications that permit text editing." Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. One or more computer storage media storing computer-useable
instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the
one or more computing devices to perform a method for providing alternate
text options, the method comprising:
displaying text within a text editing session of a text editing client
application running on a client device;
receiving a user selection made by a user within the displayed text of
at least one word or phrase for which an alternate word or phrase is desired;
receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by
the user in another text editing session;
mining web content to determine at least one alternate word or phrase
for the at least one word or phrase, based at least in part on the behavioral
signal comprising the selection of text made by the user in the other text
editing session; and
presenting the at least one alternate word or phrase within the client
application in which the at least one word or phrase is selected.
2
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, AND 19 OVER
SAULS, THOMAS, AND SCHACHTER
The Examiner finds Sauls, Thomas, and Schachter teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5-9.
In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls does not disclose ( claim 1)
( emphasis added) "receiving a user selection made by a user within the
displayed text," but finds Thomas teaches this limitation. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Sauls and Thomas "to provide user-selected search terms directly from
displayed information for the convenience of finding alternate terms for an
application." Final Act. 7.
In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas do not disclose
( claim 1) "receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made
by the user in another text editing session" and mining web content to
determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or
phrase ( claim 1) "based at least in part on the behavioral signal comprising
the selection of text made by the user in the other text editing session," but
finds Schachter teaches this limitation. Final Act. 8. The Examiner reasons it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Sauls, Thomas, and
3
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
Schachter to provide "user bias (based on user behavior) for a user-
customized system to improve the relevance of the search results." Final
Act. 9.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The references do not teach "receiving a behavioral signal
comprising a selection of text made by the user in another text editing
session." See App. Br. 11-13.
Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portion of Sauls
does not describe selecting text in a text editing session, but
rather merely states that the "search tool" may be integrated
into a word processing application. The search tool, however,
receives search terms that are typed into a search box, not a
selection of text made by the user in another text editing
session. The cited portion of Thomas describes how a user may
select a displayed term and initiate a search of the term.
Paragraph 0028 does not describe the "displayed term" as text
in a text editing session. However, even if one were to interpret
the "displayed term" as text in a text editing session, Thomas
does not describe a selection of text in another text editing
sess10n.
App. Br. 11. "The selection of search results by clicking on a hyperlink [in
Schachter] does not teach or suggest a selection of text, or a selection of text
in another text editing session." App. Br. 12. "Appellant respectfully submits
that[] Schachter's description of "'offline' activities (e.g., telephone calls)"
does not teach a selection of text, or a selection of text in another text editing
session." App. Br. 12. "[T]he only teaching of a selection of text cited by the
Examiner was Thomas' s reference to selecting a displayed term. But that is
not a selection in another session, but rather is a selection in the user's
current session." App. Br. 12-13.
Sauls describes a search tool that receives search terms typed
into a search box; Thomas describes how a user may select a
4
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
term in a current session (though arguably not in a text
editing session) and initiate a search of the term; and
Schachter describes collecting information about which
search results a user clicks on, and offline information about
telephone calls, purchases, and locations.
Reply. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2-5.
11. The references do not teach "mining web content to determine
at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase." See
App. Br. 13-16. "Sauls first identifies the synonym from a thesaurus, and
then performs a search using the synonym as a search term to find web
pages that include the synonym that was identified from the thesaurus." App.
Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 5-7. "Thomas does not describe using a search-
engine search to determine synonyms, but rather the search engine simply
returns conventional-type search results." App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 7-
8.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants' argument (i) is
directed to the various references individually, while the contested findings
are based on the collective teachings of the references. For this reason, we
do not see any errors in the Examiner's fact findings disputed by Appellants'
argument (i).
5
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations
given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 3-5 (citing Sauls ,r 43, Thomas ,r 28,
Schachter ,r,r 32-33).
Sauls discloses "[a]lternately or additionally, the search module or
tool can be more closely integrated with an application. Examples of
applications include word processing applications, email applications,
instant messaging applications, web browsers and the like." Sauls ,r 43
( emphasis added).
Thomas discloses "while viewing information displayed in
presentation screen 108, the computer end user may desire to research a
particular displayed term. The computer end user may select the term(s) and,
at block 204, initiate a search of the term(s)." Thomas ,r 28 (emphasis
added).
Thus, Sauls and Thomas, collectively, teach a selection of text made
by the user (Thomas i-f28) in a text editing session (Sauls ,r 43).
Schachter discloses a contact history analyzer collecting and storing
information concerning online activities of users, and collecting and storing
information concerning offline activities of users. Schachter ,r,r 32-33.
Thus, Schachter teaches receiving behavior signals related to
historical activities of users. When combined with Sauls' s and Thomas' s
selection of text made by a user in a text editing session, Schachter teaches
"receiving a behavioral signal comprising a selection of text made by the
user in another text editing session" as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 5-7
(citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30, Thomas ,r 28).
6
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
Sauls discloses "a search tool provides the user with the ability to
search for one or both of synonyms of, or syntactically similar words to
search terms that they enter." Sauls ,r 15. Sauls discloses "the search tool is
implemented in the context of a web browser and can be utilized for
searching web pages." Sauls ,r 1 7. Thus, Sauls teaches "mining web content
to determine at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or
phrase" as recited in claim 1. When Sauls indicates the occurrences of search
terms, synonyms, and similar words in web pages, web content has been
mined because of the identified relationship between the web pages. Further,
indicating the occurrences of synonyms and similar words in web pages
determines such synonyms and similar words by identifying them.
Thomas discloses "the search results may comprise a dictionary look-
up of a particular term and the end user may select a desirable definition or
synonym to be associated with the term( s) in presentation screen 108."
Thomas ,r 28. Thus, Thomas also teaches "mining web content to determine
at least one alternate word or phrase for the at least one word or phrase" as
recited in claim 1. When Thomas indicates a synonym, web content has been
mined because of the identified relationship between the term and the
synonym. Further, indicating the synonym determines an alternate word.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13, 14,
and 19, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 16.
7
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9-12, 15-18, 20, AND 21 OVER
SAULS AND THOMAS
Claim 9
The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim 9.
Final Act. 14--17.
In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls teaches "utilizing at least
Natural Language Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of
alternate text options for the received user selection of text" as recited in
claim 9. See Final Act. 15 (citing Sauls ,r,r 13, 17, 30, 35).
In particular, the Examiner finds Thomas teaches "receiving at least
one contextual signal related to the received user selection of text, wherein
the at least one contextual signal includes a portion of text which surrounds
the selected word or phrase within the displayed document" as recited in
claim 9. See Final Act. 16-17 (citing Thomas ,r,r 4--5, 24, 28).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The references do not teach "utilizing at least Natural Language
Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text
options for the received user selection of text." See App. Br. 17-19; see also
Reply Br. 5-8. "Appellant respectfully submits that 'searching web pages' in
paragraph 001 7, and 'search for synonyms of search terms' in paragraph
0013, do not teach mining web content." App. Br. 17. "Appellant
respectfully submits that 'syntactically similar' as used in Sauls does not
refer to utilizing natural language processing, but rather simply refers to
words that have an alternative spelling or a similar spelling." App. Br.
17. "[T]he context described in Sauls is obtained from a thesaurus, selected
by a user, and simply serves to narrow the user's search. Sauls does not
8
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
teach that the context is determined through natural language processing, or
that the context is utilized for natural language processing to mine web
content for alternate text options." App. Br. 19.
11. The references do not teach "wherein the at least one contextual
signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase
within the displayed document." See App. Br. 19-21; see also Reply Br. 9-
10. "Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Thomas merely
describe searches of selected terms, but do not describe using a contextual
signal that include[s] text which surrounds a selected word or phrase." App.
Br. 20. "Thomas is silent regarding a portion of text that surrounds the
selected contiguous words." App. Br. 21.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 5---6
(citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30).
For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, Sauls teaches
"mine web content to determine a plurality of alternate text options for the
received user selection of text" as recited in claim 9. See Sauls ,r,r 15, 17.
Regarding "utilizing at least Natural Language Processing," we agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanation that searching for
syntactically similar words in Sauls reasonably describes Natural Language
Processing. See Ans. 6. Appellants' Specification supports the Examiner's
broad but reasonable construction of "Natural Language Processing." See
Spec ,r 36 (emphasis added) ("Machine Leaming and Natural Language
Processing techniques (e.g., lexical substitution techniques) are utilized in
9
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
making such determination."). Thus, Sauls teaches "utilizing at least Natural
Language Processing to mine web content to determine a plurality of
alternate text options for the received user selection of text" as recited in
claim 9.
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's explanations given in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 7-8
( citing Thomas ,r 5) ("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching
'contiguous words,' it means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the
'selected ( desired) word or phrase.').
Thomas discloses "[ s Jome word processing applications offer a
dictionary look-up feature which enables an end user to select contiguous
words displayed in the document and search for the definition of, or
synonyms for, the selected words in a local dictionary database." Thomas ,r
5.
When combined with the teachings of Sauls, Sauls' s search tool
searches web pages for similar-meaning contiguous words. See Sauls ,r,r 15,
17; Thomas ,r 5. Thus, a word or phrase within the contiguous words is the
claimed "selected word or phrase" and the remainder of the contiguous
words is the "text which surrounds the selected word or phrase." Thus, the
cited references teach "wherein the at least one contextual signal includes a
portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the
displayed document" as recited in claim 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-12, 15, and 16,
which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 26.
10
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
Claim 17
The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim
17. Final Act. 18-22.
In particular, the Examiner finds Sauls teaches "mine web content to
determine a plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or
phrase" as recited in claim 17. See Final Act. 20 (citing Sauls ,r,r 13, 17).
In particular, the Examiner finds Thomas teaches "wherein the at least
one contextual signal is based on at least a portion of text which surrounds
the selected word or phrase within the running client application" as recited
in claim 17. See Final Act. 21-22 (citing Thomas ,r,r 4--5, 24, 28).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The references do not teach "mine web content to determine a
plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or phrase." See App.
Br. 21-23. "Sauls first identifies the synonym from a thesaurus, and then
performs a search using the synonym as a search term to find web pages
that include the synonym that was identified from the thesaurus." App. Br.
22; see also Reply Br. 5-7. "Thomas does not describe using a search-
engine search to determine synonyms, but rather the search engine simply
returns conventional-type search results." App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 7-
8.
11. The references do not teach "wherein the at least one contextual
signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase
within the displayed document." See App. Br. 23-25; see also Reply Br. 9-
10. "Appellant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Thomas merely
describe searches of selected terms, but do not describe using a contextual
signal that is based on text which surrounds a selected word or
11
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
phrase." App. Br. 24. "Thomas is silent regarding a portion of text that
surrounds the selected contiguous words." App. Br. 25.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), these same arguments were
addressed above when addressing claim 1. For the same reasons given
above, we find the cited references teach "mine web content to determine a
plurality of alternate text options for the selected word or phrase" as recited
in claim 17. See Ans. 5-7 (citing Sauls ,r,r 15-17, 26, 30, Thomas ,r 28).
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), these same arguments were
addressed above when addressing claim 9. For the same reasons given
above, we find the cited references teach "wherein the at least one contextual
signal includes a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or phrase
within the displayed document" as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 7-8 ( citing
Thomas ,r 5) ("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching
'contiguous words,' it means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the
'selected ( desired) word or phrase.').
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 20, which
are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 26.
Claim 21
The Examiner finds Sauls and Thomas teach all limitations of claim
21. Final Act. 23. Claim 21 recites "wherein the at least a portion of text
which surrounds the selected word or phrase within the running client
application is text other than the selected word or phrase." The Examiner
12
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
finds Thomas teaches this additional subject matter recited by claim 21.
Final Act. 23 ( citing Thomas ,r 5).
Appellants present the following principal argument: The references
do not teach "wherein the at least a portion of text which surrounds the
selected word or phrase within the running client application is text other
than the selected word or phrase." See App. Br. 25-26. "[T]he 'contiguous
words' described in Thomas are the selected text, and thus cannot be 'text
other than the selected word or phrase' as recited in claim 21." App. Br. 25;
see also Reply Br. 9-10.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument, we find the cited references teach
"wherein the at least a portion of text which surrounds the selected word or
phrase within the running client application is text other than the selected
word or phrase" as recited in claim 21. See Ans. 7-8 ( citing Thomas ,r 5)
("[I]t is not as the applicant asserts that by searching 'contiguous words,' it
means that the whole 'contiguous words' become the 'selected (desired)
word or phrase.').
Put another way, nothing in the claim language precludes selection of
the surrounding text and selection of the word or phrase within the
surrounding text. That is, the selected surround text is text other than the
selected word or phrase, which is surrounded.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-21 is affirmed.
13
Appeal2018-002448
Application 13/922,852
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
14