Ex Parte Srivastava et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

13022119 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/022,119 02/07/2011
57101 7590 04/15/2016
IBM CORPORATION - SVL (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dhanashree Srivastava
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.
S VL920100076US1 6067
EXAMINER
MAMILLAP ALLI, PAV AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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):
LESLIE@VL-PATENTS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DHANASHREE SRIVASTAVA and AMY DELPHINE TRAVIS
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 8-12, 14-19, and 21, which are all of the claims currently
pending in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claims 1-7, 13, 20, and 22-25 have been canceled. App. Br. 6, 13, 15, 17-
18.
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to using group data to enhance
search activities. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 8 is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal:
8. An information handling system comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory coupled to at least one of the processors;
a display device coupled to at least one of the processors;
a network adapter that connects the information handling
system to a computer network;
a set of computer program instructions stored in the
memory and executed by at least one of the processors in order
to perform actions of:
receiving a search request from a user, the search request
including one or more search terms;
identifying the user as a member of a common group of
users, the common group of users being a subset of a plurality of
search engine users;
retrieving a first plurality of search results based on the
search request;
refining the first plurality of search results into a second
plurality of search results by comparing at least one of the one or
more search terms to a plurality of previously captured search
data corresponding to the common group of users;
displaying the second plurality of search results on the
display device;
retrieving a historical search data of the user, the historical
search data including a plurality of user historical search terms
previously entered by the user and a plurality of user historical
search actions previously requested by the user, wherein the user
historical search actions are associated with the user historical
search terms;
2
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
comparing the one or more search terms to the plurality of
user historical search terms to identify a subset of the plurality of
user historical search actions; and
displaying the subset of the plurality of user historical
search actions on the display device.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 8-12 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-7 of
copending Application No. 13/531, 148. 2
Claims 8, 9, 14--16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Weng (US 2010/0114938 Al;
published May 6, 2010), Bowman (US 6,006,225; issued Dec. 21, 1999),
and Davidson (US 2007/0162294 Al; published July 12, 2007).
Claims 10-12 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Weng, Bowman, Davidson, and
Lewallen (US 2012/0166415 Al; published June 28, 2012).
ISSUE
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Weng,
Bowman, and Davidson teach or suggest the following limitations recited in
independent claim 8: i) "refining the first plurality of search results into a
second plurality of search results" ("refining" limitation); ii) "search data
2 As of the mailing date of this Decision, copending parent Application No.
13/531, 148 has not issued as a patent (see related PTAB Appeal No. 2014-
003460); therefore, this rejection remains provisional. See App. Br. 2.
3
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
corresponding to the common group of users" ("group search data"
limitation) and iii) "historical search data including a plurality of user
historical search terms previously entered by the user and a plurality of user
historical search actions previously requested by the user" ("historical search
data" limitation)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the
Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error.
Double-Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not submit any arguments contesting the provisional
double patenting rejection, but instead indicate that they will submit a
terminal disclaimer upon allowance of claims in the co-pending application.
App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection. See Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to
contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any
argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.").
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants contend the combination of Weng, Bowman, and
Davidson does not teach or suggest the "refining," "group search data," and
"historical search data" limitations recited in claim 8. App. Br. 6-11; Reply
Br. 2---6. Specifically, Appellants argue Bowman describes "'search
refinement methods' that are helpful for 'suggesting related terms' that can
then be used in subsequent search queries," which "does not refine first
search results into second search results." Reply Br. 3. Appellants further
argue Bowman's search terms do not correspond to a common group of
4
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
users and disagrees with the Examiner's construction that users are part of a
common group if they are searching for the same item. App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 4. Additionally, Appellants argue Bowman uses historical activities of
previous users to determine suggested query terms, but does not describe
retrieving historical search terms and historical search actions for the current
user (user who is performing the search). Reply Br. 5---6. We are not
persuaded by these arguments.
We agree with the Examiner that Bowman teaches a search
refinement system that presents related terms to a user and that refining
search terms leads to refining search results. See Ans. 32 (citing Bowman
6:19-32); Final Act. 12. Under a broad, yet reasonable interpretation, we
conclude Appellants' claim 8 does not preclude user involvement in the
refining process. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding (id.) that
Bowman teaches or suggests the "refining" limitation.
We further agree with the Examiner that Bowman teaches the "group
search data" limitation. Final Act. 12 (citing e.g., Bowman 2:28--46). The
Examiner correctly concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"common group of users" encompasses a group of users searching for the
same item. Ans. 33. Appellants' do not persuade us that the Examiner's
construction is unreasonably broad or inconsistent with the specification.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
("During examination of a patent application, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.").
5
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
With regard to the "historical search data" limitation, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Bowman teaches or suggests this limitation. Final
Act. 15-16 (citing e.g., Bowman 5:5-7);3 Ans. 33 (citing e.g., Bowman
8:49-9:21 ). Specifically, Bowman teaches recoding user transactions,
including query submissions ("historical search data") and actions, such as a
request to place an item in a shopping cart, or purchase an item ("historical
search actions"). Bowman 5:5-7; 9:6-9. Contrary to Appellants' argument
(App. Br. 10), the query log taught by Bowman is not just for "other users,"
but includes the current user's transactions. See Bowman 5:5-7. Under a
broad, yet reasonable, interpretation, we conclude claim 8 does not preclude
retrieving historical search data of other users, along with the historical
search data of the current user.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of: (i) independent claim 8; (ii) independent claim 15, for which
Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 8 (App. Br. 11 ); and
(iii) their dependent claims 9, 14, 16, and 21, which are not separately
argued.
With respect to dependent claims 10-12 and 17-19, Appellants
merely contend the additional reference used in the rejection of this claim
(Lewallen) does not make up for the purported deficiencies Appellants argue
are present in the rejection of independent claim 8. App. Br. 11. However,
for the reasons discussed above, we find no deficiencies regarding the
3 The disputed limitation was previously recited in canceled dependent claim
13 and thus the Examiner's findings for this limitation are presented in the
rejection for claim 13. Final Act. 15-16.
6
Appeal2014-004203
Application 13/022,119
Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness for the contested limitations of claim 8. As Appellants do not
otherwise separately argue these claims with particularity, we sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 10-12 and 17-19 for the reasons
discussed supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-12, 14--19, and
21. 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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7