Ex Parte Chowdhury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2014

12574437 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ABDUR R. CHOWDHURY, GREGORY S. PASS,
KULRAJ SIDHU, and TRAVIS WALKER

____________________

Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies AOL Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3. On July 3, 2012, Appellants filed a statement under 37 C.F.R.
§ 3.73(b) showing an assignment from AOL, Inc. to Facebook, Inc.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on September 15,
2011 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed May 14, 2012; Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 13, 2012 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed
October 6, 2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Appellants’ application relates to search query trends. Spec. 1.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below
(disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for presenting a reason that a search topic is popular,
the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a search topic that is popular;
in response to receiving the indication for the search topic,
identifying, from among multiple articles, a subset of the multiple
articles that were published less than a threshold period of time prior
to the search topic becoming popular and include content that
matches the search topic that is popular;
determining, using at least one processor, a summary of content
from the identified subset of the multiple articles; and
presenting, to at least one user, the determined summary as a
reason that the search topic is popular.

Examiner’s Rejection3
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yahoo! Buzz Index4 and Ferrel.5 Ans. 5–11.

3 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection refers only to claims 1–
20 (Ans. 5), the rejection addresses claims 21 and 22 (Ans. 10–11), and
Appellants’ statement of the rejection identifies claims 1–22 (App. Br. 10).
4 Yahoo! Buzz Index, published on January 27, 2004 (hereinafter “Buzz
Index”).
5 Ferrel et al., U.S. Patent 5,907,837, issued May 25, 1999 (hereinafter
“Ferrel”).
Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437

3

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Buzz Index and Ferrel does
not teach or suggest the limitations italicized in claim 1 above, which are
also limitations of independent claims 14 and 20. App. Br. 12–15.
In discussing the Examiner’s findings, reference will be made to the
teachings of Buzz Index, an excerpted image of which is reproduced below:

The excerpt above from Buzz Index shows popular search topics with
other information. See Ans. 12. The Examiner found Buzz Index teaches
popular search topics, such as “Golden Globe Awards” and “Britney
Spears.” Ans. 12–13. The Examiner found that Buzz Index’s disclosure of
phrases next to the search topics, such as “and the winners were…” and “co-
stars with other hotties in new Pepsi ad,” teaches a content summary and
identifying, from multiple articles, a subset that includes content that
matches the popular search topic. Ans. 5–6. The Examiner explained that
“there are underlines in both ‘Golden Globe Award’ and ‘winners’ that
provide links to the corresponding content.” Ans. 12. The Examiner found
that the link is “to a subset of articles that includes hot topics . . . .” (Ans. 5–
6) and explained that a “subset” can be interpreted as “one or more” (Ans.
Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437

4

13–14). The Examiner further found Buzz Index’s disclosure of phrases
such as “and the winners were…” teaches determining the summary from
the identified subset. Ans. 6, 13.
With respect to the limitation of identifying “a subset of the multiple
articles that were published less than a threshold period of time prior to the
search topic becoming popular,” the Examiner found Ferrel teaches limiting
articles retrieved by a search to those published within a range of time. Ans.
14 (citing Ferrel, col. 27, ll. 36–61, col. 40, ll. 32–54). Ferrel teaches: “The
user may limit the articles retrieved by the Find dialog to those published on
a given day or within a range of time.” Ferrel, col. 40, ll. 47–49. The
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of
Buzz Index with Ferrel’s teachings “to include date range for query criteria
in order to narrow the search results to the time frame of interest.” Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Buzz Index does not teach that the short descriptions
are determined from the identified subset of articles. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded because the Examiner found that the
identified subset is the linked article, denoted by the underlining in the short
description. Ans. 5–6, 12. For example, the article linked by the word
“winners” in the phrase “and the winners were…” is the subset. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that “BuzzIndex further teaches ‘determining a
summary of contents from the identified subset of multiple articles’ as each
identified hot search (popular topic) is displayed with content summaries for
each search subject, such as ‘Golden Globe Awards’ as the popular search
topic and ‘and the winners were ...’ as the summary of content from the
identified subset.” Ans. 13.
Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437

5

Appellants also argue the prior art does not teach “multiple articles”
and that the Examiner has not shown “how a mere subject or category of an
Internet search, as disclosed by BuzzIndex, constitutes the claimed
‘articles.’” Reply Br. 3. We do not agree. First, we note that the term
“articles” is broadly defined in Appellants’ Specification: “A search system
may receive and analyze electronic sources of published information,
referred to as articles . . . .” Spec. 4, ll. 11–13. Therefore, the Examiner’s
finding that the links denoted by underlining teach articles (published
information) is consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 5–6, 12.
Buzz Index discloses multiple such links to content (e.g., “winners,” “Pepsi
ad”), supporting the Examiner’s finding that Buzz Index teaches multiple
articles. Ans. 13. As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention
that “the Examiner has provided no articulation or reasoning as to how a
mere subject or category of an Internet search, as disclosed by BuzzIndex,
constitutes the claimed ‘articles.’” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue that Buzz Index’s search categories and search
topics do not teach or suggest the claimed “subset of the multiple articles
that were published less than a threshold period of time prior to the search
topic becoming popular and include content that matches the search topic
that is popular . . . .” Reply Br. 3. As explained above, the Examiner relied
on Buzz Index in combination with Ferrel’s teachings “to include date range
for query criteria in order to narrow the search results to the time frame of
interest” to teach this limitation. Ans. 6. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is
not persuasive because it attacks the teachings of the references individually.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
Appeal 2012-008648
Application 12/574,437

6

references.” In re Merck &Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Buzz
Index and Ferrel must be read, not separately, but for what they fairly teach
in combination. Id. Appellants’ arguments that Ferrel does not cure the
alleged deficiencies of Buzz Index are similarly unpersuasive. See App. Br.
13–15; Reply Br. 5.
We find that the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s findings
and conclusion of obviousness. As such, we are not persuaded of error and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not advance additional persuasive arguments with
respect to independent claims 14 and 20 and dependent claims 2–13, 15–19,
21, and 22. App. Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 6. As such, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 2–22.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22.6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc

6 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for
compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary
examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary
Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice
Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to
the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.