Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 16, 20202019004020 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020) 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. 15/152,380 05/11/2016 Timothy J. Hazen /341501-US-CNT 2397 141674 7590 11/16/2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Microsoft) 1500 K Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 EXAMINER AZAD, ABUL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2020 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): DBRIPDocket@faegredrinker.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TIMOTHY J. HAZEN, DIAMOND BISHOP, NICOLAE DUTA, MOHAMMAD BABAEIZADEH, and PETER LONGO ____________ Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 21–27 and 35–40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention concerns “methods and systems for creating a calendar event using surrounding context from text of a natural language expression.” Spec. ¶ 3.2 The Specification states that a “calendar event from the text of the natural language expression may be detected by identifying one or more slots in the text of the natural language expression related to the calendar event using a first grammar module and a second grammar module,” e.g., a slot grammar module and an intent grammar module. Id. ¶¶ 3, 22, 25, 31, 52. As examples of natural language expressions that may or may not result in a calendar event, the Specification explains that “the character strings ‘sat’ and ‘sun’ could correspond to abbreviations for ‘Saturday’ and ‘Sunday’ (as in the phrase ‘on sat eve or sun morn’) or could be examples of the words ‘sat’ and ‘sun’ (as in the phrase ‘sat in the sun’).” Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification also explains that “the slot grammar module may have a defined rule indicating that ‘sat’ and ‘sun’ are possible dates, but the decision on whether or not ‘sat’ and ‘sun’ are dates may be determined by defined rules in the intent grammar module that require certain types of the supporting context to confirm it is a date.” Id. ¶ 52. 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed May 11, 2016; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed June 7, 2018; “Advisory Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed August 31, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 7, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 25, 2019; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed April 25, 2019. Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 3 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 21 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 21. A computer-implemented method, executed by at least one processor, for creating a calendar event, comprising: receiving a natural language expression; executing a first grammar module, comprising a first set of executable instructions, to identify a phrase in the natural language expression corresponding to a slot having a slot type; tagging the identified phrase with the slot type; executing a second grammar module, comprising a second set of executable instructions, to analyze context of the natural language expression surrounding the identified phrase; based on the analyzed context, confirming the slot type for the identified phrase; and upon confirming the slot type for the identified phrase, creating a calendar event based on the identified phrase and the slot type. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: The Rejection on Appeal Claims 21–27 and 35–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wang and Brun. Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 3. Name Reference Date Wang US 7,502,730 B2 Mar. 10, 2009 Brun et al. (“Brun”) US 2010/0318398 A1 Dec. 16, 2010 Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the § 103 rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the references teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. Independent Claims 21 and 35 As noted above, the § 103 rejection of independent claims 21 and 35 rests on Wang and Brun. See Final Act. 4–7. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21 and 35 because the references fail to teach or suggest the following limitations in each claim: “executing a second grammar module, comprising a second set of executable instructions, to analyze context of the natural language expression surrounding the identified phrase”; and “based on the analyzed context, confirming the slot type for the identified phrase.” See Appeal Br. 13–21; Reply Br. 3–10. In particular, Appellant contends that Wang “does not confirm the slot type for a single received phrase using two different grammar modules.” Appeal Br. 13; see Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant also contends that Wang’s teachings “are directed towards [information] resolution, not slot type confirmation.” Appeal Br. 15; see Reply Br. 5–8. Further, Appellant asserts that “the presently claimed technology looks to confirm that the term ‘sat’ is actually a date (rather than a verb), whereas the technology in Wang would have already had tagged the term ‘sat’ as a date and looked to determine to which Saturday the phrase was referring.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant also Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 5 asserts that “Brun fails to make up for [the] deficiencies of Wang.” Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Wang discloses the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 5, 8 (citing Wang 5:1–6:25, 10:1–14:21); Advisory Act. 2 (citing Wang 13:16–45); Ans. 4–6 (citing Wang 3:33–64, 9:22–10:64, 12:1–13:46, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, “specifically Wang discloses, ‘if an application (contains discourse grammar) wishes to allow other applications (other discourse grammar) to provide an entry for a slot, it defines a grammar rule that has a name that matches the type of the slot.’” Ans. 6 (citing Wang 9:22–10:50). Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Wang teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Wang discloses “resolving user input that crosses different application domains to identify a discourse item such as a command or entity.” Wang 1:47–49, code (57). Wang explains that “slots defined by one application can be filled with” information supplied “by a different application.” Id. at 13:10–12. For example, a travel-booking application may define slots for trip origin and trip destination, and a contacts application may supply information to fill the slot for trip destination. Id. at 12:57–13:15. Wang also explains that “when a slot defined by one application is filled with” information supplied “by a separate application, the application that defined the slot does not need to know of the existence or operation of the application that will provide” the information that fills the slot. Id. at 13:16–20. Filling a slot defined by a first application with information supplied by a second application, as Wang discloses, does not teach or suggest the Appeal 2019-004020 Application 15/152,380 6 disputed limitations: “executing a second grammar module, comprising a second set of executable instructions, to analyze context of the natural language expression surrounding the identified phrase”; and “based on the analyzed context, confirming the slot type for the identified phrase.” As Appellant contends, “the teachings of Wang are directed towards [information] resolution, not slot type confirmation.” See Appeal Br. 15. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 21 and 35. Dependent Claims 22–27 and 36–40 Claims 22–27 depend from claim 21, and claims 36–40 depend from claim 35. For the reasons discussed for claims 21 and 35, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 22–27 and 36–40. Other Issues Because the preceding determinations resolve the § 103 rejection for claims 21–27 and 35–40, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–27 and 35–40. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–27, 35–40 103 Wang, Brun 21–27, 35–40 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation