Ex Parte Su et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12060068 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/060,068 03/31/2008 Qi Su YAHOP045 5961
76133 7590 03/24/2016
MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC.
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte QI SU and WENDELL BAKER
____________________

Appeal 2014-003747
Application 12/060,068
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

Appeal 2014-003747
Application 12/060,068

2
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method for matching a listing object to a
candidate object by calculating a matching score using a canonical form of
the listing object. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for analyzing a listing
object to define a match to a candidate object among many
possible candidate objects, comprising;
(a) receiving a listing object as an input;
(b) using a text search engine to generate a set of candidate
objects based on characteristics of the listing object, each of the
set of candidate objects being paired with the listing object to
define a listing-candidate pair, each listing candidate pair being
processed by,
(i) generating a matching feature vector for a listing-
candidate pair, the matching feature vector including a
matching score based on a common features between the
candidate object and a canonical form of the listing object
based on domain specific knowledge;
(ii) analyzing the matching feature vector using a
judging committee module; and
(iii) rendering a match judgment by evaluating the
results of the judging committee module to determine
whether the listing object and the candidate object are a
match, wherein the judging committee module applies a
plurality of machine learning classifiers and a rule system
to the matching feature vector to render the matching
judgment and wherein the rule system includes a set of
rules with precedence;
(c) saving the match judgment to a computer readable media.

Appeal 2014-003747
Application 12/060,068

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
True US 6,112,172 Aug. 29, 2000
Faybishenko
Lu
Chudnovsky
Liao

US 2003/0050924 A1
US 2007/0106659 A1
US 7,376,752 B1
US 2009/0006360 A1

Mar. 13, 2003
May 10, 2007
May 20, 2008
Jan. 1, 2009

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2–4, 9, 11, 13–18, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Liao. Final Act. 4–14.
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liao and Chudnovsky. Id. at 14–16.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liao and Faybishenko. Id. at 16–17.
Claims 7, 8, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liao and True. Id. at 17–20.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liao and Lu. Id. at 21–22.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err by finding Liao discloses “a matching score
based on a common features between the candidate object and a canonical

1 The rejection of claims 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 20.
Appeal 2014-003747
Application 12/060,068

4
form of the listing object based on domain specific knowledge,” as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 15 and 20?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Liao does not disclose “a matching score based on a
common features between the candidate object and a canonical form of the
listing object based on domain specific knowledge,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 15 and 20. Br. 7–12. Specifically,
Appellants argue Liao’s ranked list “ranking results is not the same thing as”
a “‘canonical form of a listing object’ that is ‘based on domain specific
knowledge.’” Id. at 10–11.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds Liao’s search query
discloses “the listing object,” and Liao’s resultant hit document discloses
“the candidate object.” Final Act. 5 (citing Liao ¶¶ 33, 46). The Examiner
further finds Liao discloses a ranked list, which ranks a hit document based
on the number of “occurrence[s] of query terms within the [hit] domain of
the document.” Ans. 22–23 (citing Liao ¶¶ 35, 39). While the Examiner
determines Liao’s “ranked list is a canonical form” (id. at 22), we determine
Liao’s ranked list is not a canonical form of the listing object as required by
the claim. More specifically, Liao’s ranked list is not a form of the query
itself; rather, the ranked list is information connoting the similarity between
the hit document and the query. Liao ¶¶ 33, 35.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, and 20 and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 2–14, 16–19, 21, and 22, which depend directly or indirectly from
claims 1, 15, and 20.
Appeal 2014-003747
Application 12/060,068

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2–4, 9, 11, 13–18, and 20–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Liao is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Liao and Chudnovsky is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Liao and Faybishenko is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao and True is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Liao and Lu is reversed.

REVERSED