Ex Parte Fan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13244351 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/244,351 09/24/2011
86621 7590 08/01/2018
Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser, P.C.
400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James J. Fan
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.
YOR920110375US 1
(27682)
CONFIRMATION NO.
9310
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
IBMPAIRENotify@ssmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES J. FAN and DAVID A. FERRUCCI
Appeal2017-002529
Application 13/244,3 51 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15, which are all the claims pending
in this application. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 16-25 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-002529
Application 13/244,351
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to scoring candidate answers in a
question and answer system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
scoring candidate answers to questions in a question and answer
system comprising the steps of:
receiving an input query string;
performing a query analysis upon said input query string
to obtain query terms;
obtaining a candidate answer from at least one document
in a data corpus using said query terms;
identifying one or more entity structures embedded in said
at least one document;
extracting said one or more entity structures embedded in
said at least one document, said embedded entity structures
comprising user embedded tags or links to other documents;
determining a number of said entity structures having
terms in said embedded tags or links that match query terms in
the received input text query; and,
computing a confidence score for said candidate answer as
a function of said number of entity structures having terms in said
embedded tags or links that match query terms in the query
string,
wherein at least one of the steps of the method is
performed by a processor device.
2
Appeal2017-002529
Application 13/244,351
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 6-10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2009/0292687 Al; Nov. 26, 2009)
and Carmel et al. (US 2010/0036828 Al; Feb. 11, 2010). Final Act. 4-11.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Carmel, and Reddy (US 6,629,096 Bl; Sept. 30,
2003). Final Act. 11-13.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Carmel, Reddy, and Anfindsen (US 6,751,617 Bl;
June 15, 2004). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
references.
The Examiner finds the combination of Fan and Carmel teaches or
suggests "computing a confidence score for said candidate answer as a
function of said number of entity structures having terms in said embedded
tags or links that match query terms in the query string," as recited in claim
1. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 2-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Fan teaches
scoring a candidate answer by comparing candidate answer lexical types to
query lexical answer types. Ans. 3 ( citing Fan ,r 35). The Examiner finds
Carmel teaches ranking a web page in a list of returned results using the
number of in-links to the page and the number of sites that link to the page.
Id. ( citing Carmel ,r 59).
3
Appeal2017-002529
Application 13/244,351
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the combination of Fan
and Carmel does not teach or suggest the "computing" limitation. App.
Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 3-7. In particular, Appellants argue Carmel's
references to scoring are related to a search engine "ranking function" that
determines terms that could be used to modify a website to increase its
findability. App. Br. 16 (citing Carmel ,r 59). Appellants argue Carmel's
"scoring" is completely unrelated to candidate answer confidence scoring.
Id.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites, in
relevant part, "computing a confidence score for said candidate answer as a
function of said number of entity structures having terms in said embedded
tags or links that match query terms in the query string." The claimed
"query string" is received and analyzed to obtain "query terms" that are used
to obtain the "candidate answer." As argued by Appellants, the Examiner
has failed to adequately explain how the combination of Fan and Carmel
teaches or suggests "computing a confidence score for a candidate answer"
that has been obtained as claimed. The Examiner has further failed to
adequately explain how Fan and Carmel teach or suggest computing a
confidence score "as a function of said number of entity structures having
terms in said embedded tags or links that match query terms in the query
string." Instead, the Examiner has made conclusory findings that these
limitations are taught without explaining how an ordinarily skilled artisan
would combine the cited prior art references to achieve the recited claim
limitations. See Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 2-5.
4
Appeal2017-002529
Application 13/244,351
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Fan and Carmel. 2 We also do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 10, which recites commensurate
limitations, and claims 6-9, 14, and 15, dependent therefrom.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected as unpatentable over Fan, Carmel, and
Reddy. See Final Act. 11-13. The Examiner does not find Reddy teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. See id. Accordingly, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 11.
Claim 3 stands rejected as unpatentable over Fan, Carmel, Reddy, and
Anfindsen. See Final Act. 13. The Examiner does not find either Reddy or
Anfindsen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See id. Accordingly,
we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 3.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 6-11,
14, and 15.
REVERSED
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a
single dispositive issue").
5