Ex Parte AngwinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201813651414 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/651,414 10/13/2012 111109 7590 06/21/2018 John Angwin 48882 Sauvignon Court Fremont, CA 94539 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Angwin 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. 9311 EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2018 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 JOHN ANGWIN Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 Technology Center 2100 Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, BRUCE R. WINSOR and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 13, 16-20, and 25-27. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 1, 4--8, 13, 16-20, and 25-27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Su (US 2013/0110823 Al; May 2, 2013) and Gao (US 2011/0258148 Al; Oct. 20, 2011). Non-Final Act. 3-8. We reverse. Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to "trending topic systems [that] collect content items from content sources then generate, rank, sort, and display topics to users." Spec. 1 :2-3. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for displaying changes in trending topics to a user in a network environment, the method comprising: retrieving a first group of content items; generating a first trending group of topics for the first group of content items; retrieving a second group of content items; after generating the first trending group of topics, generating a second trending group of topics for the second group of content items; computing a topic similarity score between a second topic from the second trending group of topics and a first topic from the first trending group of topics, the topic similarity score being based on one or more terms contained in one or more content items associated with the second topic and one or more terms contained in one or more content items associated with the first topic; determining, by the topic similarity score, one or more dissimilarities between the second trending group of topics and the first trending group of topics; and displaying to the user a display comprising the dissimilarities. 2 Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Su and Gao teach all limitations of claim 1. Non- Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Su's disclosure of identifying relevant trending topics teaches claim 1 's recited computing a topic similarity score between a second topic from the second trending group of topics and a first topic from the first trending group of topics, the topic similarity score being based on one or more terms contained in one or more content items associated with the second topic and one or more terms contained in one or more content items associated with the first topic. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Su i-fi-139-55, 104); see also Ans. 3 (citing Su i-fi-1 39-55, 103-104). The Examiner finds Gao's disclosure of selecting queries with diverse topics teaches claim 1 's recited "determining, by the topic similarity score, one or more dissimilarities between the second trending group of topics and the first trending group of topics." Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Gao i-fi-16, 32); see also Ans. 4--5 (citing Gao i-fi-16, 32). The Examiner reasons [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Su with the teachings of Goa [sic] to for displaying changes in trending topics to a user in a network environment as taught by Gao in order to provide better understanding to users search intent when submitting a search query. 3 Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 9 ("Su teaches how content associated with multiple trending topics is retrieved that similar with the determined user's intent and deliver to the user. Assuming Su failed short in hindsight, Gao serves as a clarity that displaying dissimilarities is also an option."). Appellant presents, among other arguments, the following principal arguments: 1. [in Su] the relevance value is computed between a trending topic and concepts and/or named entities of a user's search history (Su paragraph [0103]). These concepts and/or named entities come from the search history segmenting module which does not produce trending topics. The sole producer of Su's trending topics is a trending topic identification module (described in Su paragraphs [0029] - [0032]). Therefore, the relevance value is not computed between two trending topics. App. Br. 3--4; see also Reply Br. 1. 11. Gao takes a group and determines a subgroup. Determining dissimilarities between two groups derived at different times is important to capturing the temporal element of the claimed invention. Lacking such a feature renders the combination inadequate. The second problem is that Gao isn't even talking about trending topics to begin with. Gao' s teachings relate to queries. App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2-3. 111. The Examiner does not explain how Su and Gao are combined. App. Br. 7. Su discloses trending topic identification module 104 is configured to analyze real-time content 114 received from real-time content source(s) 4 Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 102 to identify a number of trending topics as well as to identify other information associated therewith. Such other information may include a list of concepts and/ or named entities derived from real-time content 114 and associated probabilities that each such concept and/ or named entity is related to one of the trending topics. Su if 32. Su further discloses "[u]sing search history 120 and the trending topics, interest detection module 110 determines trending topics that are relevant to the user and retrieves relevant trending content 134 for the user." Su if 55; see also Su Abstract ("The topics trending that are relevant to the user are identified by comparing a search history of the user with one or more trending topics stored in a database."), iii! 103-104. Accordingly, Su's identification of relevant trending topics does not compute a similarity score between two topics because Su compares one or more trending topics with the user search history-not with another topic (from another trending group of topics). See Su iii! 32, 55, 103-104, Abstract. Claim 1 expressly requires two "trending groups of topics." Although the Examiner has demonstrated that Su discloses one group of trending topics, the Examiner has failed to show that Su discloses a second group of trending topics. It is not readily apparent from the Examiner's rejection that the "user search history" is a "second trending group of topics," as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Su cannot disclose computing a topic similarity score between two topics from two different groups of topics. Furthermore, Su, at best, discloses comparing topics to a user's search history, which is not the same as computing a similarity score. Thus, the Examiner erred in finding Su' s disclosure of identifying relevant trending topics teaches claim 1 's recited "computing a topic 5 Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 similarity score between a second topic from the second trending group of topics and a first topic from the first trending group of topics." Turning to Gao, Gao discloses one or more queries associated with a web page, and selecting a subset of those queries by using "a dissimilarity measurement feature [] to select queries with diverse topics with respect to one another." Gao i-f 6; see also Gao i-f 32. Accordingly, Gao's disclosure of selecting queries with diverse topics does not determine a dissimilarity between a first trending group of topics and a second trending group of topics because Gao compares search queries-not trending groups of topics. See Gao i-fi-1 6, 32. Thus, the Examiner erred in finding Gao' s disclosure of selecting queries with diverse topics teaches claim 1 's recited "determining, by the topic similarity score, one or more dissimilarities between the second trending group of topics and the first trending group of topics." Finally, regarding the Examiner's reasoning to combine the teachings of Su and Gao, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Su and Gao are combined to achieve the claimed invention. As best understood, the Examiner proposes to modify Su, in light of Gao, to provide "dissimilar" topics to the user search history instead of "similar" topics to the user search history, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Su and Gao in order to "provide better understanding to users search intent when submitting a search query." See Non-Final Act. 5, Ans. 9. Even if we assume that a skilled artisan would have a reason to make such a modification, the result does not provide dissimilarities between first and second trending groups of topics. 6 Appeal2017-000241 Application 13/651,414 For the reasons discussed above, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--8 and 26, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 13 recites the same limitations discussed above when addressing claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-20 and 27, which depend from claim 13. Independent claim 25 recites the same limitations discussed above when addressing claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 13, 16-20, and 25- 2 7 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation