Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2016

13242352 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/242,352 09/23/2011
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
11/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jun WANG
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.
073338.0979 3433
EXAMINER
LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN WANG and KANJI UCHINO
Appeal2014-005347
Application 13/242,352
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MATTHEWS.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-16, 20-30, and 34--43 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-005347
Application 13/242,352
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to customer opinion
analysis (Spec., para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising: by one or more computing devices,
for each of one or more users, the user having provided one or more
opinions concerning one or more products,
deriving one or more opinion records from the one or more
opinions, wherein each opinion record is derived from a specific
opinion provided by the user concerning a specific product and
comprises:
a user identifier of the user;
an object indicating the specific product;
a feature of the specific product;
an opinion expression describing the feature according to the
specific opinion provided by the user;
an opinion score of the feature corresponding to the opinion
expression; and
a time when the specific opinion is provided by the user; and
generating a user-preference profile based on the one or more opinion
records, wherein:
the user-preference profile comprises one or more user-
preference vectors corresponding to the one or more products; and
each user-preference vector comprises one or more features of
the corresponding product and one or more feature scores respectively
corresponding to the one or more features.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 13-16, 20, 27-30, 34, 41--43 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chislenko (US 6,041,311, iss. Mar. 21,
2000).
2
Appeal2014-005347
Application 13/242,352
2. Claims 7-12, 21-26, 35--40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chislenko and Goeldi (US 7,974,983 B2, iss.
July 5, 2011).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence 1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue in the Appeal Brief at pages 8-11 that the
rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose
the claim limitations for:
a feature of the specific product;
an opinion expression describing the feature according to the
specific opinion provided by the user;
an opinion score of the feature corresponding to the opinion
expression; and ...
one or more user-preference vectors
... each user-preference vector comprises one or more features
of the corresponding product and one or more feature scores
respectively corresponding to the one or more features.
(Claim 1, emphasis added).
The Examiner has determined that the argued claimed limitations are
shown by Chislenko at columns 3 and 4 (Ans. 2, 3, 6, 7).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the argued claim limitations are
drawn to a specific feature of the product, an opinion expression describing
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-005347
Application 13/242,352
,1 I' , 1 I' ,1 I' , 1 " ' tne 1earure ana opm10n score OJ me 1earure, ana a user-prererence vecrnr
including one or more feature scores for one or more features. The above
citations to Chislenko fail to disclose these argued claim limitations. For
example, at paragraph 3, lines 38 and 39, it is disclosed that ratings may be
given to items, but not for a specific feature of that item or product as
claimed. Further, there is no specific disclosure of an opinion expression
describing the feature and opinion score of the feature, and a user-preference
vector including one or more feature scores for one or more features. For
these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not
sustained.
Independent claims 15, 29, and 43 contain similar limitations, and the
rejection of claims 15, 29, and 43 suffers from the same deficiency as the
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims 15, 29, and 43 and
their dependent claims is not sustained for the same reasons.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-16, 20-30, and 34--43 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4