Ex Parte Fikes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 201411097883 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREW FIKES, JEFFREY L. KORN, OREN E. ZAMIR, and LILLY CHRISTINE IRANI ____________ Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 20-42.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 1-19 have been cancelled. Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Claim 20, which is representative of the invention, reads as follows: 20. A computer-implemented method for analyzing a user's history, comprising: receiving a search query comprising one or more search terms for a user's historical activity from a search requester; identifying relevant events in a user information database, the user information database having at least three types of events including browsing events, search query events, and user selection of query result events, wherein the identified relevant events are events from the user's historical activity that include content matching the search terms of the search query; grouping the relevant events by event type to produce a plurality of groups of relevant events; ordering the relevant groups by ranking criteria; and returning the grouped and ordered relevant events to the search requester. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 20-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maddalozzo (US 6,460,060 B1), Littlefield (US 2005/0256956 A1), and Farrell (US 2005/0192955 A1). (See Ans. 4-18). Issue on Appeal Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Maddalozzo, Littlefield, and Farrell because Farrell does not teach or suggest the steps of “grouping,” “ordering,” or “returning,” as recited in claim 20? Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 18-23). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. With respect to independent claims 20, 31, and 42, Appellants contend that the proposed combination does not teach or suggest “‘grouping the relevant events by event type to produce a plurality of groups of relevant events,’ ‘ordering the relevant groups by ranking criteria,’ or ‘returning the grouped and ordered relevant events to the search requester’” (App. Br. 14). Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Maddalozzo and Littlefield, but contend the Examiner erred in finding Farrell teaches or suggests the disputed features (App. Br. 14-15). With respect to the recited grouping step, Appellants specifically assert that characterizing “categories,” mentioned in paragraph 53 of Farrell, as the claimed “groups” is improper because paragraph 4 of Farrell discusses “categories” in terms of grouping objects based on content (App. Br. 15-16). Appellants assert that Farrell’s content-related categories are not the same as the claimed grouping of events by event type (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 7). The Examiner responds that Littlefield was relied on for recording different types of user’s historical activity from a search requester, which also correspond to the claimed “event” and “event type” (Ans. 19 (citing Littlefield ¶¶ [0044], [0055])). As further explained by the Examiner (Ans. Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 4 20), Farrell was relied on for teaching organization of search results into groups or categories based on topics or event types. We also find the Examiner’s characterizing Farrell’s objects and categories as the claimed events and groups to be reasonable. With respect to the recited “ordering” step, Appellants contend that Farrell’s ordering of categories in paragraph 56 is performed as an intermediate step instead of organizing already selected objects (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 11-12). Appellants further point to the discussion of ranking objects based on relevance and obtaining incoherent search results in paragraph 59 of Farrell and assert “ranking criteria is actually dismissed by Farrell as producing ‘incoherent search results’” (App. Br. 19). The Examiner finds Farrell’s ordering categories (or relevant groups) is based on some ranking criteria (Ans. 21). That is, the categories/groups are nonetheless ranked despite the ranking criteria producing incoherent ranking of those categories/groups. The Examiner further points to Farrell’s presentation of the results shown in Figure 11 where two groupings for categories 1 and 2 are shown and concludes that the search results do show two categories or groups (id.).2 We agree with the Examiner that the presentation of the results includes these groups. 2 Appellants’ discussion of whether the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is permissible (Reply Br. 9) ignores the fact that the recited event types, or ranking criteria, are “values” that do not functionally delimit the recited method steps of claim 1. We also observe that Appellants’ disclosure discusses the term “event” by merely providing examples of how events are identified or treated rather than providing a clear, limiting definition (e.g., Spec. ¶ [0057]). Nonetheless, the Examiner relied on Littlefield for disclosing the recited event types, whereas the Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 5 With respect to Appellants’ assertion that Farrell’s ordering the groups is not related to already selected groups, we also agree with the Examiner. We further observe that to the extent an implied selection preceded the step of grouping, the other references were relied on for teaching the user selection of query result events (Ans. 5 (citing Littlefield ¶¶ [0044] and [0055])). Regarding the claimed step of “returning the grouped and ordered relevant events,” Appellants focus on Farrell’s Figure 11 and contend the depicted individual objects including category information merely present “a list of individual, ungrouped objects,” and not returning of grouped events (App. Br. 20). We disagree. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 22-23), displaying two boxes for each of category 1 and category 2 to the user meets the claimed returning step including the two categories (or groups) ordered by ranking criteria (see also Farrell ¶ [0078]). With respect to claims 22 and 33, Appellants provide similar argument that Farrell does not show ordering of categories and objects within the categories (App. Br. 21). We also agree with the Examiner’s findings and analysis with respect to Farrell’s creating an organizational structure disclosed in paragraph 56 (see Ans. 7, 12-13). CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude because Farrell in combination with Maddalozzo and Littlefield teaches all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 20, or the other claims not argued teaching value of Farrell was explained to be grouping of events and ordering the results (see Ans. 4-6). Appeal 2011-007114 Application 11/097,883 6 separately or with sufficient specificity (App. Br. 21). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of all the appealed claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 20-42 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation