Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13773499 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/773,499 02/21/2013 Tak Keung Cheng
26192 7590 03/29/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-2122003 4893
EXAMINER
SYED,FARHANM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAK KEUNG CHENG and
JAMES R. VON BEHREN
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21. Final Act. 1. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S.
Pat. No. 8,396,888 ("the '888 patent"). Final Act. 8.
1 The Final Office Action lists claim 22 as rejected, however, claim 22 has
been cancelled. See App. Br. 1 n.2, 20 (Claims App'x).
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S.
Pat. No. 8,386,514 ("the '514 patent"). Final Act. 8.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Anderson (US 2008/0256044 Al; Oct. 16, 2008) and Reed, Jr.
(US 2009/0132929 Al; May 21, 2009) ("Reed"). Final Act. 11-23.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "location-based searching." Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, an indication of a
geographical location of a computing device;
selecting, by the computing system, a search area that
corresponds to the geographical location, from among a
collection of search areas that correspond to the geographical
location, based on a score that is assigned to each of the search
areas in the collection of search areas;
determining, by the computing system, a search result
that is most-highly ranked for the selected search area;
causing, by the computing system, content that represents
the determined search result to be provided for receipt by the
computing device; and
modifying, by the computing system, the score that is
assigned to the selected search area as a result of receiving an
indication that a user of the computing device provided input to
select a representation of the content that represents the
determined search result.
2
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 1-20
Appellants do not present arguments against the double patenting
rejections. See App. Br. 4--15; see also Reply Br. 1--4.
We, therefore, summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under
the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1-27 of the '888 patent; and the rejection of claims
1-20 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentab le over claims 1-14 of the '514 patent.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-21 OVER ANDERSON AND REED
Contentions
The Examiner finds Anderson and Reed teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 11-15. In particular, the Examiner finds Anderson teaches
"selecting, by the computing system, a search area that corresponds to the
geographical location, from among a collection of search areas that
correspond to the geographical location, based on a score that is assigned to
each of the search areas in the collection of search areas" as recited in claim
I. See Final Act. 12 (citing Anderson ,r,r 11, 15, 38-39, 44).
3
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
In particular, the Examiner finds Anderson teaches all limitations of
claim 1, except for "determining, by the computing system, a search result
that is most-highly ranked for the selected search area" and "modifying, by
the computing system, the score that is assigned to the selected search area
as a result of receiving an indication that a user of the computing device
provided input to select a representation of the content that represents the
determined search result," which the Examiner finds are taught by Reed.
See Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Anderson and Reed "to improve location-based
searching techniques." Final Act. 14.
Among other arguments, Appellants present the following principal
argument:
Anderson does not teach "selecting ... a search area that corresponds
to the geographical location, from among a collection of search areas that
correspond to the geographical location, based on a score that is assigned to
each of the search areas in the collection of search areas" as recited in claim
1 because "the features in Anderson that the Office action purports to have
scores are not the features that the Office action identified as disclosing the
recited 'search areas.'" App. Br. 10-11 ( emphasis omitted).
Anderson is clear that its "items of interest" [purportedly
having scores] are the search results and not the "names of
geographical locations specified by a user" that the Office
action has identified as purportedly disclosing the recited
"search areas." For example, Anderson discusses "performing
a search on an information retrieval system to identify items of
interest in a vicinity of a user-specified geographical location."
App. Br. 11.
In response to this argument, the Examiner explains
4
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
the presence of an information retrieval system that includes
items of interest[] clearly suggests a weighted attribute that is
used to calculate a score. See further Anderson, see paragraph
[0039], which discloses retrieving information concerning
businesses or other places of interest that are located within a
relatively close proximity to the provided location data,
suggesting a weighted attribute. More specifically, Anderson
discloses a database index, where the index may organize stored
information based on a weighted score, where such information
may be retrieved based in a relatively close proximity to the
provided location data. As such, a score, let alone an assigned
score flows through the database index[].
Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 12.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "the Examiner cannot identify
how any of these purported 'search areas' [ in Anderson] are selected based
on score" and "[t]hese 'businesses or other places of interest' [for which
information is retrieved in Anderson,] however, do not disclose the recited
search areas." Reply Br. 1-2.
Our Review
Anderson discloses "the user configures the information retrieval
system to associate geographical locations that are known by the user with
words or phrases by which the user typically describes or identifies those
respective locations." Anderson ,r 11. Anderson discloses "[a] table of
names of geographical locations specified by a user and geographical
locations corresponding to the names is configured." Anderson ,r 15.
Anderson discloses "the user pre-configured the system to perform searches
around a school, office, home, or present location." Anderson ,r 44. Thus,
Anderson discloses performing searches around known locations referred to
by words or phrases. These various known locations are "search areas."
5
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
Anderson further discloses "database index 22 incorporates the
location data as search criteria such that the database index 22 will only
retrieve information concerning businesses or other places of interest that are
located within a relatively close proximity to the provided location data."
Anderson ,r 39. Thus, Anderson discloses limiting searches to a "search
area."
Claim 1 specifically recites the following key limitation ( emphasis
added):
selecting, by the computing system, a search area that
corresponds to the geographical location, from among a
collection of search areas that correspond to the geographical
location, based on a score that is assigned to each of the search
areas in the collection of search areas.
To the extent Anderson discloses a "search area" and limits a search
to a particular geographic area by utilizing location data incorporated in the
database index, this still does not teach the limitations recited in claim 1. In
Anderson, we do not readily see disclosure of the "search area" being
selected based on a "score" assigned to each search area. Instead,
Anderson's user selects the "search area." See Anderson ,r,r 11, 15, 44. To
the extent retrieved information in Anderson is based on a "score," any such
"score" is assigned to the retrieved information-not to the "search area."
According to claim 1, the search area itself is selected based on scores
assigned to search areas. The important difference between claim 1 and
Anderson is the way that the search area is selected.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 2-10 and 21, which depend from claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-004089
Application 13/773,499
Independent claim 11 recites the same key limitation discussed above
with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 11, or of claims 12-20, which depend from claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 for obviousness-type
double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7