11342606 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte Dai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2014

11342606 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES DAI, JULIA H. FARAGO, NATALA J. MENEZES, RAMAZ NAAM, SALEEL SATHE, and HUGH J. WILLIAMS ____________ Appeal 2011-013724 Application11/342,606 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013724 Application11/342,606 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, which are the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Illustrative Claim 1. A method for managing feedback data used to search results, comprising: aggregating, at a computing device, one or more elements of feedback data from a plurality of users, wherein the one or more elements of feedback data includes feedback generated by a user reordering, into an order of relevance, one or more documents presented in response to a search query; associating the one or more elements of feedback data with one or more documents; ranking the one or more documents based on the one or more elements of feedback data, wherein, when ranking the one or more documents, feedback that is received at a time more recent to when a search request is received is emphasized more than older feedback data when ranking the one or more documents; and providing the ranked one or more documents. Prior Art Kim US 2003/0046098 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Lu US 2007/0106659 A1 May 10, 2007 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Lu. Appeal 2011-013724 Application11/342,606 3 ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1-9 Appellants contend the combination of Kim and Lu does not teach “feedback that is received at a time more recent to when a search request is received is emphasized more than older feedback data when ranking the one or more documents,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-9. The Examiner finds the provisional application of Lu teaches collecting user feedback on a document for a query, and stores the user’s last rating. Ans. 15. Appellants contend storing a last rating does not teach more recent feedback is emphasized more than older feedback. Reply Br. 4-7. The provisional application of Lu teaches at “any given point this value is the user u’s current rating for document d and query q. Importantly, this feature does not depend on how many times the user performs the query but only stores his or her last rating.” Provisional App. 60/663,361, Appendix B, 24. The user’s last rating is used, and all previous ratings from the user are not stored. Thus, the user’s more recent feedback, which is stored, is emphasized more than the previous feedback, which is deleted. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for claims 2-9 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 10-13 Appellants contend the combination of Kim and Lu does not teach “the feedback data being emphasized more when the feedback data corresponds to a document that is indexed more frequently than other documents.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s rejection of Appeal 2011-013724 Application11/342,606 4 claim 11 (Ans. 9-11) fails to show where this claim limitation is taught in the prior art. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and corresponding dependent claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 14-20 Appellants contend the combination of Kim and Lu does not teach “a different weight is given in association with a word in the feedback data than a weight given in association with the word within the plurality of documents” as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner finds paragraphs 40-70 and the Abstract of Lu teach this limitation. Ans. 13. The Examiner has not identified a specific portion of Lu within paragraphs 40-70 or the Abstract that teaches this limitation. Nor has the Examiner persuasively explained why paragraphs 40-70 and the Abstract teach this limitation. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 and corresponding dependent claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lu is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-20 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lu 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2011-013724 Application11/342,606 5 AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc