Ex Parte Fikes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2014

11097883 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

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