Ex Parte Su et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201612060068 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation