Ex Parte Egnor et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2012

11024967 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/024,967 12/30/2004 Daniel Egnor 0026-0130 7261
44989 7590 01/13/2012
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIEL EGNOR and GEETA CHAUDHRY
____________

Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-29, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system that determines documents
that are associated with a location, identifies a group of signals associated
with each of the documents, and determines authoritativeness of the
documents for the location based on the signals. Abstract.

Representative Claim

1. A method comprising:

identifying a set of documents, as candidate documents,
that are all associated with a same geographic location;

identifying signals associated with the candidate
documents;

determining a measure of authoritativeness of the
candidate documents for a business at the location based on the
signals; and

processing the candidate documents based on their
measures of authoritativeness for the business at the location.

Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

3

Prior Art
Agoni US 2002/0133374 A1 Sep. 19, 2002
Getchius US 6,643,640 B1 Nov. 4, 2003
Nye US 2004/0064334 A1 Apr. 1, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-18, 20-22, 24, and 26-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Getchius and Agoni.
Claims 5, 9, 11, 19, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Getchius, Agoni, and Nye.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Getchius and Nye.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, and 29.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on, and adopt as our own, the findings of fact set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer.

Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

4

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-17, 19, 23, 25, and 26- 28
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “determining a measure of authoritativeness of the candidate
documents for a business at the location based on the signals” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4-10. The Examiner finds that Getchius
teaches this limitation. Ans. 6; 23-28. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants contend that Getchius does not teach “identifying signals
associated with the candidate documents,” therefore, Getchius cannot teach
determining authoritativeness based on “signals associated with the
candidate documents.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Getchius and Agoni teaches identifying signals associated
with the candidate documents. Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner. We
further find that the term “identifying signals associated with the candidate
documents” as recited in claim 1 encompasses identifying any data
associated with the candidate documents, such as the data discussed in col.
28, ll. 7-11 of Getchius.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 14 and 15 (App.
Br. 26-37) similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find
unpersuasive. Appellants have not presented arguments for separate
Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

5

patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 25-28, which
thus fall with corresponding independent claims 1 and 15.

Section 103 rejection of claims 4 and 18
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “determining documents that are linked to by the candidate
documents, and identifying the determined documents as candidate
documents.” App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 10-12. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Getchius and Agoni teaches the limitations of claim 4. Ans.
8, 29-30. We agree with the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for claim 18 (App. Br. 38-39) similar to
those presented for claim 4, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 6 and 20
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “determining a number of outlinks from ones of the candidate
documents that point to other ones of the candidate documents; and wherein
determining a measure of authoritativeness of the candidate documents
includes: generating an authoritative score for one of the candidate
documents based on the number of outlinks from other ones of the candidate
Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

6

documents that point to the candidate document” as recited in claim 6. App.
Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 13-15. The Examiner finds that the combination of
Getchius and Agoni teaches this limitation. Ans. 8, 30-31. We agree with
the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for claim 20 (App. Br. 39-42) similar to
those presented for claim 6, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 7 and 21
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “identifying anchor text associated with links to the candidate
documents; and wherein determining a measure of authoritativeness of the
candidate documents includes: generating an authoritative score for one of
the candidate documents based on whether the candidate document is
pointed to by one or more links whose anchor text matches all or part of a
name of the business at the location” as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 19-21;
Reply Br. 15-17. The Examiner finds that the combination of Getchius and
Agoni teaches this limitation. Ans. 8-9, 31-32. We agree with the
Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

7

taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for claim 21 (App. Br. 42-44) similar to
those presented for claim 7, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 8 and 22
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “identifying titles of ones of the candidate documents; and wherein
determining a measure of authoritativeness of the candidate documents
includes: generating an authoritative score for one of the candidate
documents based on whether a title associated with the candidate document
matches all or part of a name of the business at the location” as recited in
claim 8. App. Br 21-24; Reply Br. 17-20. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Getchius and Agoni teaches this limitation. Ans. 9, 32-33.
We agree with the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for claim 22 (App. Br. 44-46) similar to
those presented for claim 8, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

8

Section 103 rejection of claims 10 and 24
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Agoni does
not teach “determining locations with which ones of the candidate
documents are associated; and wherein determining a measure of
authoritativeness of the candidate documents further includes: increasing
the measure of authoritativeness of one of the candidate documents based on
whether the candidate document is associated with a single location” as
recited in claim 10. App. Br. 24-25; Reply Br. 20-22. The Examiner finds
that the combination of Getchius and Agoni teaches this limitation. Ans. 9-
10, 33-34. We agree with the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
Appellants present arguments for claim 24 (App. Br. 46-48) similar to
those presented for claim 10, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 29
Appellants contend that the combination of Getchius and Nye does
not teach the limitations of claim 29. App. Br. 56-61. The Examiner finds
that the combination of Getchius and Nye teaches the limitations of claim
29. Ans. 17-22. We agree with the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
Appeal 2009-012635
Application 11/024,967

9

taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-18, 20-22, 24, and 26-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Getchius and Agoni is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 9, 11, 19, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Getchius, Agoni, and Nye is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Getchius and Nye is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

tj