Ex Parte Chandra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

12878042 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/878,042 09/09/2010
22879 7590 12/16/2015
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Praphul CHANDRA
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.
82261496 4272
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2015 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRAPHUL CHANDRA and GEETHA MANJUNATH
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to searching a task-based web
interaction. Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method of searching a task-
based web interaction, comprising:
providing a task-based web interaction search query to a
search engine;
obtaining search results from the search engine;
classifying search results into a set of information
parameters, wherein the set of information parameters relates to
the task-based web interaction provided in the search query;
comparing the information parameters against a
repository containing multiple sets of information parameters,
wherein each set of information parameters corresponds to a
task-based web interaction, to identify at least one task-based
web interaction corresponding to the set of information
parameters related to the task-based web interaction provided in
the search query; and
presenting the at least one identified task-based web
interaction.
3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the
classifying classifies the search results into a keyword
information parameter and a uniform resource location
information parameter.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Agrawal (US 2011/0035402 Al; Feb. 10, 2011).
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Agrawal and Herlocker (US 2009/0157617
Al; June 18, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
ISSUES
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "comparing the
information parameters against a repository containing multiple sets of
information parameters" (hereinafter the "comparing" limitation), as recited
in independent claim 1?
B) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "providing the
at least one uniform resource locator as a search query to a search engine"
(hereinafter the "providing" limitation), as recited in dependent claim 2?
C) Did the Examiner err in finding Agrawal discloses "wherein the
classifying classifies the search results into a keyword information parameter
and a uniform resource location information parameter," as recited in
dependent claim 3?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14, and 15 are in error.
Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has failed to establish that
claims 3 and 13 are unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Issue A: Claims 1, 4-11, 14, and 15
Appellants contend Agrawal does not disclose the "comparing"
limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 4--8. In particular,
Appellants argue "assuming that the 'related URL data' of Agrawal is the
'set of information parameters,' Agrawal does not ... compare the related
URLs against a repository containing multiple sets of information
parameters." Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 7-8. Appellants further argue
3
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
"[a]smnming that the text from a web page in search results is somehow
being construed as 'the information parameters' recited in claim 1, Agrawal
does not disclose classifying search results into the text." Reply Br. 7-8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Agrawal discloses that search results from a query are
associated (classified) with distinct URLs. Final Act. 6 (citing Agrawal
i-f 66). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Agrawal discloses
comparing the URL data (of the initial search results) with other URL data
which has been populated and indexed. Ans. 3 (citing Agrawal i-f 67); see
also Final Act. 6. In other words, it is the initial obtained search results
which are classified into URLs (information parameters). Agrawal i-f 66.
We observe that Appellants' Specification also similarly describes
classifying search results into URLs (information parameters) of various
sites. Spec. 5. The cited portions of Agrawal further disclose using the
search results as an index into compiied reiated URL data (compare
information parameters against repository containing multiple sets of
information parameters). Agrawal i-f 67. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Agrawal discloses the "comparing" limitation.
Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2)
independent claims 11 and 14, for which Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10); and (3) dependent claims
4--8 and 15, which are not separately argued.
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 10, Appellants merely
contend the additional reference used in the rejections of these claims
(Herlocker) does not make up for the purported deficiencies Appellants
4
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
argue are present in the rejection of independent claim 1. App. Br. 13. As
Appellants do not otherwise separately argue these claims with particularity,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 9 and 10 for the
reasons discussed supra.
Issue B: Claims 2 and 12
Appellants contend Agrawal does not disclose the "providing"
limitation. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 9--10. Specifically, Appellants argue
Agrawal does not describe providing the related URL, which is equated by
the Examiner to be the extracted URL, as a search query to a search engine.
Reply Br. 9. We disagree.
As the Appellants note, the Examiner finds "the extracted URL is
disclosed in paragraph 28 of Agrawal," which "discloses identifying a
related URL for a task oriented search query." App. Br. 10; see Final Act. 7.
However, contrary to Appellants' argument that Agrawal does not disclose
the reiated URL is provided as a search query to a search engine, the cited
paragraph of Agrawal further discloses tools (search engine) are provided
which search the content pointed to by those URLs (providing URL as
search query to search associated content). Agrawal i-f 28. Therefore, we
determine the Examiner did not err in finding Agrawal discloses the
"providing" limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 2 and claim 12, which is grouped with claim 2 (App. Br.
10).
Issue C: Claims 3 and 13
Claim 3 recites "wherein the classifying classifies the search results
into a keyword information parameter and a uniform resource location
information parameter." The Examiner finds Agrawal discloses this
5
Appeal2014-001359
Application 12/878,042
limitation because Agrawal teaches search results categorized according to
associated URLs and keyword associations. Ans. 5 (citing Agrawal i-fi-1 70,
106). Appellants argue that the classifying recited in claim 3 must be
consistent with the Examiner's interpretation of "classifying search results"
set forth in parent claim 1. App. Br. 11. We agree. The cited sections of
Agrawal do not describe that the initial search results (equated to be the
"search results" recited in claim 1) are classified into URLs and keywords.
See Agrawal i-fi-1 70, 106. Accordingly, Appellants persuade us the Examiner
did not establish Agrawal discloses the limitation recited in claim 3 and,
therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) rejection of claim 3 and
claim 13, which contains a substantially similar limitation.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14, and
15.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 3 and 13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ACP
6