Ex Parte Bekkerman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12536498 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/536,498 08/06/2009 Ron Bekkerman
56436 7590 03/21/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82259621 3484
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RON BEKKERMAN
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-20. Claims 10, 12, and 15 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 9 are exemplary and read as follows, with
emphases added:
1. A method executed by a computer, comprising:
building a profile of a website from keywords appearing
at the website, comprising:
providing a website score for a keyword of the keywords
based on the number of occurrences of the keyword at the
website;
building a profile of a user from the keywords appearing
at the website, comprising:
providing a user score for the keyword based on the
number of occurrences of the keyword in documents accessed
by the user;
combining the website score and the user score to
provide a combined score for the keyword; and
personalizing a web page to the user based on the
combined score.
9. A non-transitory tangible computer readable storage
medium having instructions for causing a computer to execute a
method, comprising:
2
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
generating a website profile from keywords appearing at
the website, comprising:
providing the keywords as a query to a search engine;
extracting additional keywords from search results of the
search engine; and
enhancing the keywords with the additional keywords;
generating, from the keywords appearing at the website
and the additional keywords, a user profile based on a
frequency of the keywords and the additional keywords
appearing in documents other than the website and accessed by
the user on a computer; and
personalizing a website based on the website profile and
the user profile.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 9, 13, 14, and 16-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fables et al. (US
2002/0024532 Al; published Feb. 28, 2002) and Oztekin et al. (US
2012/0089598 Al; published Apr. 12, 2012). Final Act. 2-23.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fables, Oztekin, and Cucerzan et al.
(US 7,254,774 B2; issued Aug. 7, 2007). 1 Final Act. 23-27.
1 Appellant notes (App Br. 12, nn. l and 2), regarding claims 7 and 8, the
passages cited by the Examiner as being disclosed in Cucerzan are actually
found in Chopra (US 2008/0065620 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008).
Appellant further notes (id.), regarding claim 11, the citations provided to
Cucerzan are actually directed to US 2005/0210383 Al, published Sept. 22,
2005. We, therefore, consider claims 7 and 8 to be rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fables, Oztekin, and
3
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
Issues on Appeal2
Based on Appellant's arguments (App Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-5), the
following issue is presented for appeal:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 16-20 as being
obvious because the base combination of Fables and Oztekin fails to teach or
suggest, among other things, "combining the website score and the user
score to provide a combined score for the keyword," as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claim 16?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 as being
obvious because the base combination of Fables and Oztekin fails to teach or
suggest, among other things, "personalizing a website based on the website
profile and the user profile," as recited in independent claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection (Final Act. 2-27) in light
of Appellant's contentions in the Appeal Brief (App Br. 5-12) and the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner erred in light of the Examiner's
response to Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-5).
Claims 1--8 and 16-20
We agree with Appellant's arguments (App Br. 9; Reply Br. 4--5)
that Oztekin fails to teach or suggest "combining the website score and the
user score to provide a combined score for the keyword." While Oztekin
does teach or suggest generating a website score by binding or aggregating
Chopra and claim 11 to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Fables, Oztekin, and Cucerzan.
2 We only address these issues, which are dispositive. We do not address
additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellant's arguments.
4
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
general user statistical information for queries received from a website
(Oztekin i-f 100), the Examiner has not shown that Oztekin generates a user
score or, consequently, that the user score and a website score are combined
for the purposes of personalizing a web page, as recited in independent claim
1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 16.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-
8 and 16-20 based upon the combination of Fables and Oztekin.
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 14
We agree with Appellant's arguments (App Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5)
that the combination of Fables and Oztekin fails to teach or suggest
"personalizing a website based on the website profile and the user profile."
Neither the Final Action (see Final Act. 14) nor the Examiner's Answer (see
Ans. 2-5) explains how Fables or Oztekin, either alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests personalizing a website based on the website profile and
the user profile. In the Final Action, the Examiner states Fables discloses
"personalizing a website based on the user profile" (Final Act. 14). In
response to the Appellant's arguments (App Br. 10-12), the Examiner states
(Ans. 4--5) Oztekin teaches a "computed score," but doesn't specify whether
the computed score is meant to read on the claimed "website profile" or the
claimed "user profile." The Examiner further fails to address how the
combination of Fables and Oztekin teaches or suggests "personalizing a
website based on the website profile and the user profile," as recited in
independent claim 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9,
11, 13, and 14 based upon the combination of Fables and Oztekin.
5
Appeal2014-005897
Application 12/536,498
Claims 7, 8, and 11
Claims 7, 8, and 11 were rejected over the base combination of Fables
and Oztekin. In light of our findings that the base combination of Fables and
Oztekin fails to disclose each and every limitation of independent claims 1,
9, and 16, we further find the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 7
and 8, which depend from independent claim 1, and dependent claim 11,
which depends from independent claim 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7,
8, and 11 over the base combination of Fables and Oztekin.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-20 as
being obvious over the base combination of Fables and Oztekin.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, and
16-20.
REVERSED
6