Aravind Musuluri

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2019

14643729 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)

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.
14/643,729 03/10/2015 Aravind Musuluri MU-SE-RD 6598
15889 7590 10/02/2019
Aravind Musuluri
237 Paradise Lake Dr
Birmingham, AL 35244
EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2019 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):
amusuluri@teemingmind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARAVIND MUSULURI
____________

Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Aravind Musuluri (“Appellant”), proceeding pro se, appeals under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject2 under 35 U.S.C.

1 The Examiner has withdrawn a 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection
of claim 10. See Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 2, dated May 12, 2017; see
also Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2–3, dated July 6, 2016.
2 The Examiner states that “[t]his communication is responsive to the
amendment filed on 04/21/2016. This action has been made NON-FINAL.”
Final Act. 2. However, the Office Action Summary (PTOL-326) lists the
action as “FINAL.” We consider the Examiner’s statement at page 2 of the
Final Office Action to be a typographical error. See also id. at 9 (indicating
that the Office Action is made final).
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

2
§ 103: (1) claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Chevalier (US
8,719,275 B1, issued May 6, 2014) and Hansson (US 2010/0114874 A1,
published May 6, 2010) and (2) claim 9 as unpatentable over Chevalier,
Hansson,3 and Milic-Frayling (US 2004/0100510 A1, published May 27,
2004). Claim 3 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “generally relates to search engine
operations and methods to display the results of a search operation.
Particularly, the disclosure relates to a system and method for augmenting
the results of a search operation by identifying for the user information in the
results that is of a remarkable nature.” Spec. ¶ 2, Figs. 1, 3, 5. Claims 1 and
10 are independent.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A computer implemented method of augmenting search
results in a multi-document search environment comprising
identifying remarkable data within the search results, wherein
the remarkable data comprises a key and a value; said method
comprising:
(a) Predefining identification rules to identify said
remarkable data wherein the identification rule comprises a
key and a value, and optionally attributes selected from
classification, clarification and combinations thereof;
(b) Storing the said identification rules in a storage unit;

3 Presumably, the Examiner intended to include Hansson in Rejection 2. See
Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

3
(c) Identifying remarkable data within the search results
by parsing the search results to identify a key/value pair
within the search results;
(d) Matching said key/value pair with the identification
rules and identifying matched data as remarkable data within
the search results;
(e) Highlighting at least a portion of the remarkable data
within search results using presentation semantics within the
search results.

10. A search system, comprising: one or more servers; and logic
configured to receive a search query and prepare a list of search
results matching the search query criteria, the logic further
configured to identify remarkable data within the search results
with aid of identification rules wherein the identification rule
comprises a key and a value, and optionally attributes selected
from classification, clarification and combinations thereof, the
logic further configured to identify highlighting rule based on
classification of the remarkable data and apply presentation
semantics from the highlighting rule to the remarkable data and
return search results with remarkable data highlighted.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Chevalier and Hansson
Claims 1, 2, and 4–8
Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method of augmenting
search results in a multi-document search environment including
“identifying remarkable data within the search results, wherein the
remarkable data comprises a key and a value” and the step of “[p]redefining
identification rules to identify said remarkable data wherein the
identification rule comprises a key and a value.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.).4

4 Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 7, 2017.
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

4
The Examiner finds that Chevalier discloses “remarkable data,” “but
fails to disclose wherein the remarkable data comprises a key and value[]
data.” Final Act. 5.5 The Examiner also finds that “Hansson discloses
wherein the remarkable data comprises a key and value[] data (See Hansson
Figure 6, Item 630 & Paragraph 0052).” Final Act. 5 (bolding omitted).
The Examiner further finds that the combined teachings of Chevalier and
Hansson disclose the step of “[p]redefining identification rules to identify
said remarkable data wherein the identification rule (‘a rule which may
govern how color is associated to a score’ See Chevalier Column 6, Lines
50-67) comprises a key and a value (See Hansson Figure 6, Item 630 &
Paragraph 0052).” Id. (bolding omitted).
Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Chevalier and
Hansson fails to disclose the step of “[p]redefining identification rules to
identify said remarkable data wherein the identification rule comprises a key
and a value.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant contends that “‘a rule
which may govern how color is associated to a score’ of Chevalier . . . in
combination with a key and a value of Hansson . . . does not disclose or
teach identification rules of the present invention.” Id. Specifically,
according to Appellant, Hansson does not “disclose data in Item 630
comprises [] rules. Hansson merely discloses presence of key/value pairs in

5 The Examiner states that “Chevalier fail[s] to explicitly disclose[]
remarkable data (‘high ranking results’ See Chevalier Column 4, Lines 4-6
wherein the [E]xaminer interprets ‘high ranking’ as the same as ‘remarkable
data’).” Final Act. 5 (bolding omitted). As the Examiner takes the position
that the term “high ranking” in Chevalier constitutes the claimed “remarkable
data,” we consider the Examiner’s statement that “Chevalier failed to
explicitly disclose[] remarkable data” to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

5
search results” and “the Examiner has previously asserted Item 630 in FIG. 6
of Hansson comprises [] remarkable data and therefore not rules.” Appeal
Br. 9.
As an initial matter, we agree with Appellant that the terms
“identification rule[s]” and “remarkable data” have been clearly defined in
the Specification. See Reply Br. 36; see also Ans. 3 (The Examiner’s
explanation that Appellant’s claim language fails to clearly define these
terms). In this case, the Specification defines “identification rules” to
“comprise [] keys and corresponding to each key a value” (Spec. ¶ 52) and
“remarkable data” “to include any value associated with a key that is of a
remarkable nature as determined by the system” (Spec. ¶ 11). See Reply Br.
3. In fact, paragraph 63 of the Specification describes how the key and
corresponding value of the identification rule(s) is used to identify
remarkable data via matching the key and corresponding value of the
remarkable data with the key and corresponding value of the identification
rule(s). See Spec. ¶ 63; see also id. at ¶ 64; Reply Br. 3. In other words, the
“key and corresponding value” of the “identification rule[s]” is different
than the “key and corresponding value” of the “remarkable data.”
Here, the Examiner cites to the same section of Hansson (i.e.,
paragraph 52, Figure 6 Item 630) for disclosing the key and value for both
the “identification rule(s)” and the “remarkable data.” See Final Act. 5.
Given that the claim requires “identifying remarkable data within the search
results, wherein the remarkable data comprises a key and a value” and given
that the section of Hansson cited by the Examiner discusses “search results”

6 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 12, 2017.
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

6
including “key-value pairs,” we agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Chevalier and Hansson disclose the recited “remarkable data.”
See Final Act. 5; see also Hansson ¶ 52, Fig. 6; Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.). However, the claim also requires an “identification rule” including
“a key and a value.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner appears
to rely on the teachings of Chevalier for disclosing the “identification
rule(s).” See Final Act. 5 (“[p]redefining identification rules to identify said
remarkable data wherein the identification rule (‘a rule which may govern
how color is associated to a score’ See Chevalier Column 6, Lines 50-67”)
(bolding omitted). The Examiner then appears to rely on the teachings of
Hansson for disclosing the “key and value” of the “identification rule(s).”
See Final Act. 5 (citing Hansson “Figure 6, Item 630 & Paragraph 0052”
(bolding omitted)). However, as discussed above, the Examiner cites to the
same section of Hansson (i.e., paragraph 52, Figure 6 Item 630) for
disclosing the key and value for both the “identification rule(s)” and the
“remarkable data.” See Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not direct us to
any discussion in Hansson regarding “rules,” let alone “identification
rule(s),” having “key-value pairs.” See Final Act. 5; see also Appeal Br. 9.
As such, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical
reasoning to establish that the combined teachings of Chevalier and Hansson
disclose the “identification rule(s)” of the method of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4–8 as unpatentable over Chevalier and Hansson.

Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

7
Claims 10 and 11
Claim 10 is directed to a search system and, similarly to claim 1,
includes the limitation “the identification rule compris[ing] a key and a
value.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not separately
address the limitations of claim 10 in the Final Rejection. See Final Act. 8.
Rather, the Examiner states that “[c]laims 10–11 are rejected on the same
basis as claims 1–2.” Id.
As the Examiner “relies on the same basis” to reject claim 10 as claim
1, the Examiner is again relying on the same section of Hansson (i.e.,
paragraph 52, Figure 6 Item 630) for disclosing the key and value for both
the “identification rule[s]” and the “remarkable data.” See Final Act. 5, 8.
Additionally, claim 10 recites logic “configured to identify [a] highlighting
rule based on classification of [] remarkable data.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims
App.). Appellant contends that, with respect to the subject application, “the
highlighting applied is based on the classification attribute of the predefined
identification rules.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 13, 38).7
Appellant’s Specification describes that “[i]n a preferred embodiment,
the remarkable data within the search results is highlighted based on the
classification attribute of the identification rule.” Spec. ¶ 12.
The Specification also describes:
For each remarkable data identified by the search result parsing
logic 112 (FIG. 1) in the search result 502, the search result
highlighting logic 113 (FIG. 1) identifies the classification from
the corresponding matching identification rule. Based on the
classification, the search result highlighting logic 113 (FIG. 1)
identifies a highlighting rule.

7 Appellant asserts the same arguments for independent claims 1 and 10.
See Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

8
Spec. ¶ 69; see also id. ¶ 70, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5.
The method of claim 1 recites the highlighting step more broadly than
the system of claim 10. Compare Appeal Br. 13(Claims App.), with id. at
14 (Claims App.). As the Examiner does not address the logic “configured
to identify [a] highlighting rule based on classification of [] remarkable data”
limitation of claim 10 (see Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 6–7), the Examiner
does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined
teachings of Chevalier and Hansson disclose the search system of claim 10.
Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Chevalier and Hansson.
Obviousness over Chevalier, Hansson, and Milic-Frayling
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends indirectly from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14 (Claims
App.). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is based on the same
unsupported findings discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Final
Act. 8–9. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Milic-Frayling to
remedy the deficiencies of Chevalier and Hansson. Accordingly, for reasons
similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Chevalier, Hansson,
and Milic-Frayling.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10,
and 11 as unpatentable over Chevalier and Hansson.

Appeal 2017-009862
Application 14/643,729

9
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 9 as
unpatentable over Chevalier, Hansson, and Milic-Frayling.

REVERSED