Ex Parte Marel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 201310693679 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte STEPHANIE MAREL and GAVIN BREBNER ________________ Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the Final Rejection (Fin. Rej.) mailed April 2, 2009; the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 9, 2009; the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 5, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 4, 2010. Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 2 Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chen (US 6,349,307 B1; issued Feb. 19, 2002). Ans. 3-5. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to modifying structured descriptions of potential user concept sets in such a way that the structured descriptions are dynamically configurable according to extrinsic context and therefore amenable to simplification prior to a process of concept matching or correlation. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method of matching structured descriptions, the method including the steps of: a. detecting a context reflecting an environment in which the matching is to occur; b. matching the detected context to a concept list appropriate to the detected context; c. using the concept list to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions; d. matching the reduced structured descriptions; and e. providing an output representing the matching between the structured descriptions. PIVOTAL ISSUE Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), has the Examiner erred by finding that Chen teaches “using the concept list to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Chen teaches all recited limitations of claim 1. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner maps Chen’s disclosure of topics for categories of documents to the recited “context.” Ans. 3 (citing Chen, col. 3, ll. 33-67; col. 8, ll. 14-37). Further, the Examiner maps Chen’s associated set of keywords and phrases for a topic to the recited “concept list.” Ans. 4 (citing Chen, col. 3, ll. 3-15; col. 5, ll. 19-24; col. 8, ll. 14-37); see also Fin. Rej. 3.2 Further, the Examiner maps Chen’s predefined or user-defined views for augmenting the search criteria and internally consistent topic vocabulary to the recited “using the concept list to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions.” Ans. 4 (citing Chen, col. 3, ll. 3-15; col. 6, ll. 36-41) (emphasis added). Appellants argue, among other arguments, that augmenting or modifying search criteria of a query, as taught by Chen, is completely different from using a concept list (matched from a detected context reflecting an environment in which the matching is to occur) to transform structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions, where the reduced structured descriptions are then matched. App. Br. 7 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants. Appellants further argue that modifying the search criteria of a query based upon context, as taught by Chen, is completely different from transforming structured descriptions (note plural sense of structured descriptions) into reduced structured descriptions that are then matched, as recited in claim 1. 2 Notably, Chen, column 5, lines 19-24, which describes that each topic may have an associated set of keywords and phrases, is not cited in the Final Rejection, and is cited for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 4 Moreover, it is further noted that translating terms and phrases used by authors of documents or by a user who is searching for documents into a common internal vocabulary has nothing to do with using a concept list (matched from a detected context) to transform structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). Again, we agree with Appellants. Even if we assume, but do not decide, that Chen’s associated set of keywords and phrases for a topic describes the recited “concept list,” and that either Chen’s augmenting the search criteria or Chen’s internally consistent topic vocabulary describes the recited “transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions” (as set forth in the Answer’s Grounds of Rejection section (Ans. 3-5)), the Examiner has not explained how or why the concept list (associated set of keywords and phrases for a topic) is used to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions. In response to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7-8) regarding using a concept list to transform, in the Answer’s Response to Argument section (Ans. 6-7), the Examiner explains, without citing to Chen, that Chen teaches “[a] list of keywords and phrases (concept list) associated with the topic is used in to transform the keywords within the query (structured descriptions).” Ans. 6. The Examiner further explains that the keywords and phrases in the concept list are associated and relevant to the topic. Ans. 7. In the Reply Brief, however, Appellants argue that the Examiner has read the “using” clause of claim 1 in isolation, without regard to how this clause of claim 1 relates to other clauses of claim 1. Claim 1 further recites matching the reduced structured descriptions, and providing an output Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 5 representing the matching between the structured descriptions. The reduced structured descriptions in the “matching” and “providing” clauses refer to the reduced structured descriptions that were transformed from the structured descriptions using the concept list, as claimed. If the words of a query in Chen are considered to be the “structured descriptions” of claim 1, then it is clear that Chen provides absolutely no hint whatsoever of matching the words of a query to each other. In fact, matching one portion of a query with another portion of a query makes no technical sense. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that matching queries would also make no sense. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Chen fails to disclose the “using” element of claim 1, in combination with the “matching” and “providing” elements. Reply Br. 2. Again, we agree with Appellants. Further, even if we assume, but do not decide, that Chen’s list of keywords and phrases is in fact used to transform the keywords within the query, we fail to see, and the Examiner has not explained how, this transforms the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions, particularly in light of the Examiner’s position in the Answer’s Grounds of Rejection section (Ans. 3-5), where the Examiner maps Chen’s predefined or user-defined views for augmenting the search criteria and internally consistent topic vocabulary to the recited “using the concept list to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions.” Ans. 4 (citing Chen, col. 3, ll. 3-15; col. 6, ll. 36-41) (emphasis added). Weighing Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 3- 5, 10, and 12, which depend from claim 1. Appeal 2010-007895 Application 10/693,679 6 Regarding independent claims 2, 6, 13, and 14, Appellants argue that these claims are patentable for similar reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. Claim 2 recites “using the detected context to transform,” “matching,” and “providing.” Claim 6 recites “using the concept list to transform the structured descriptions into reduced structured descriptions.” Claim 13 recites “use the concept list to transform,” “matching means adapted to match,” and “output means adapted to provide.” Claim 14 recites “using the concept list to transform,” “matching,” and “providing.” Therefore, we conclude Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 13, and 14, and we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims, of claim 11 which depends from claim 2, or of claims 7-9 which depend from claim 6. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). REVERSED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation