Ex Parte Bengualid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12890327 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/890,327 09/24/2010
84374 7590 08/31/2016
LIEBERMAN & BRANDSDORFER, LLC
802 STILL CREEK LANE
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mateo Nicolas Bengualid
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.
ARC920100058US1 8116
EXAMINER
TITCOMB, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 MATEO NICOLAS BENGUALID,
JULIAN ARIEL CERRUTI, TESSA ANN LAU,
GUILLERMO MANZATO, and JEFFREY WILLIAM NICHOLS
Appeal2015-001657
Application 12/890,327 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-24, and 26-29, all the pending
claims in the present application. (Appeal Br. 6.) We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal2015-001657
Application 12/890,327
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the automated processing of web tasks
to provide information relevant to such tasks based on past user actions. A
user task request yields a script for execution containing a sequence of
actions to accomplish the task. (Spec. Abstract.) A plurality of previously
created or executed scripts are ranked for use in generating the script. (Id. f
44.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
a message transport system to receive a user web task
from a user device;
a synthesizer to extract command information from the
task, the extracted information including task parameters
converted into a command, the command selected from the
group consisting of: syntax and unstructured text in a core
command;
the synthesizer to identifY a plurality of prior scripts
related to the command and rank a relevance of the scripts
relative to the task;
the synthesizer to generate a sequence of web actions
from a selection of ranked scripts into a combined script to
automate and accomplish the task, wherein the sequence of web
actions is based on prior user web actions; and
a browser automation server to execute the synthesized
sequence of web actions associated with the combined script,
and returning to the user information that is relevant to the user
web task, wherein the information results from said execution.
Rejections
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 6-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2
Appeal2015-001657
Application 12/890,327
unpatentable over Billsus et al. (US 7,757, 170 B2; July 13, 2010), Khavari et
al. (US 7,200,804 Bl; Apr. 3, 2007) and Bates et al. (US 6,732,142 Bl; May
4, 2004). (Final Action 3-14.)
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Billsus, Khavari, Bates, and Plaster et al. (US 8,200,670 Bl; June 12,
2012). (Final Action 14--16.)
ANALYSIS
"the synthesizer to identifY a plurality of prior scripts related to the
command and rank a relevance of the scripts relative to the task"
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Billsus, Khavari, and Bates teaches or suggests the identification of a
plurality of prior scripts related to the command and the ranking of the
scripts by relevance relative to the task?
Bates teaches the audible presentation of web content to a user while
the user performs other tasks on the computer providing the audible
presentation. (Bates Abstract.) A script is used to define the parameters of
the audible background presentation of the web content. (Id. 5:38--42.) The
script determines which web content will be presented and under what
conditions. (Id. 6:44--67, Fig. 5.)
The Examiner finds the limitation of claim 1 regarding identification
of prior scripts related to a command and ranking of a relevance of the
scripts relevant to the task is taught or suggested by Bates in combination
with Billsus and Khavari. (Final Action 5---6.) The Examiner finds that
Bates teaches a combined script to automate a task, because Bates provides
3
Appeal2015-001657
Application 12/890,327
script parameters for automating the task of listening to web content. (Id.;
Advisory Action 2; Answer 22.)
Appellants contend that, in the disputed limitation, "prior scripts
related to the command are ranked, and the ranking is relative to the task.
Bates does not teach ranking a structured script relative to audibly presenting
the web page. Appellants clearly and properly claim ranking of the scripts
in relation to the task." (Appeal Br. 15.) Appellants further argue that,
Bates teaches a single, combined script generated for a task of
audibly presenting web content. That is, Bates identifies scripts
for each parameter included in a single script to accomplish the
task of audibly presenting web content. As Bates teaches
generating a single script, Bates does not teach or suggest
ranking scripts.
(Id. at 16.)
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that
the ranking of scripts is taught or suggested in Bates. The cited portions of
Bates discloses a single script used to audibly present identified web content.
While we agree with the Examiner that the script used in Bates contains
parameters that are "clearly [relevant] to audibly presenting the web page,"
(Answer 22), the Examiner has not cited a portion of Bates that discusses
ranking the scripts or provided an explanation of how Bates teaches or
suggests ranking the scripts. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the
Examiner's finding that, "[t]he claim does not specify what context a
command may, or may not include, and as such as an initial matter would
not preclude any command's initial relatedness, based upon a specific
parameter type," this finding does not support the Examiner's conclusion
that, "[a]ccordingly, the assertion concerning Bates not addressing a
plurality of the prior scripts related to the command is moot." (Advisory
4
Appeal2015-001657
Application 12/890,327
Action 2.) The disputed limitation requires the identification of a plurality
of prior scripts and the ranking of those scripts by relevance, and we agree
that the Examiner has not shown where the prior art teaches or suggests
these features.
Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments regarding the disputed
limitation to be persuasive. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, and independent claims 6 and 13 containing
commensurate limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 3, 7-12, 14--24, and 26-29.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-24,
and 26 over Billsus, Khavari, and Bates, and of claims 27-29 over Billsus,
Khavari, Bates, and Plaster.
REVERSED
5