Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

15152380 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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