Ex Parte Greenfield et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11426760 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111426,760 0612712006
100462 7590 03/16/2016
Dority & Manning P,A, and Google Inc,
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lawrence Greenfield
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
GGL-600B 1434
EXAMINER
PULLIAM, CHRISTY ANN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LA WREN CE GREENFIELD, DANIEL EGNOR,
FRANCOIS BAILLY, and JOHN HANKE
Appeal2014-000943
Application 11/426,760
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000943
Application 11/426,760
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
62-91. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
The invention relates to processing ambiguous search requests in a
geographic information system (Spec. i-f 6). Claim 62, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
62. A method for processing ambiguous search requests,
compnsmg:
rece1vmg, at a server, a search request including an
arbitrary search string;
determining, for a plurality of composition rules, a
respective plurality of probabilities that the composition rules
match the arbitrary search string, wherein each composition rule
specifies a search string pattern and is associated with a type of
search;
selecting a composition rule from among the plurality of
composition rules based on the probability that the composition
rule matches the arbitrary search string; and
using information in the arbitrary search string to search
an information system that corresponds to the type of search
associated with the selected composition rule.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Williams
Elliott
Eminovici
US 2002/0032612 Al Mar. 14, 2002
US 2002/0156779 Al Oct. 24, 2002
US 2003/0236783 Al Dec. 25, 2003
2
Appeal2014-000943
Application 11/426,760
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections1:
Claims 62---66, 68-70, 72-76, 78-80, 82-86, and 88-90 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott and Eminovici.
Claims 67, 71, 77, 81, 87, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott, Eminovici, and Williams.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Elliott and Eminovici
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 62, including that Elliott
teaches "determining, for a plurality of composition rules, a respective
plurality of probabilities that the composition rules match the arbitrary
search string, wherein each composition rule specifies a search string pattern
and is associated with a type of search" (Non-Final Act. 2 3-5).
Appellants contend Elliott does not disclose "determmmg, for a
plurality of composition rules, a respective plurality of probabilities that the
composition rules match the arbitrary search string" because "Elliott's input
is assumed to be in 'a particular format' when received from the client, such
as an input field which is defined to receive a zip code" (App. Br. 5).
Appellants further argue "the claimed rule is used to determine how to
1 Although the Examiner has not made a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
upon further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether claim 82,
which recites "A computer system for processing ambiguous search
requests, the system comprising a non-statutory computer-readable medium
storing an executable computer program product ... ,"recites statutory
subject matter when all the limitations are considered as a whole. (See Spec.
iTiT 156-158).
2 The Non-Final Action dated October 15, 2012.
3
Appeal2014-000943
Application 11/426,760
process the input string in terms of syntax, while Elliott's analysis assumes
that the input's syntax is good (i.e., the input is in fact a zip code), and then
deals with the meaning of that input" (App. Br. 6). Appellants also contend
Elliott fails to discloses "each composition rule specifies a search string
pattern and is associated with a type of search" because "Elliott assumes
that an input query is about a geographic location" by disclosing that a
request is "'in a particular format, identified by the client application as
a zip code, or GPS coordinate, etc.' Elliott, [0040]" (App. Br. 6). Further,
Appellants argue "Elliott requires that the search request be input into an
input field that is pre-associated with at least one of these types of inputs"
(App. Br. 6).
We find the Examiner has not shown Elliott discloses determining the
probabilities that a search request matches a number of composition rules as
required by claim 62. The portion of Elliott cited by the Examiner (Non-
Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--5) teaches a way of indexing a document by
matching regular expressions formed from entries in a spatial lexicography
database with a subject document (see Elliott, i-f 54). For example, Elliott
discloses: "At block 208, the robot checks the document to identify any
occurrences of state names and variations thereof in the document. If no
state is identified, processing moves to block 216 where the robot parses the
document for the occurrence of zip codes or area codes" (Elliott, i-f 55).
Thus, Elliott's robot iteratively searches the same document for regular
expressions representing information such as a state, zip code, or area code.
In contrast, the claimed invention must determine the probabilities that a
given search input matches various composition rules and select a
composition rule before performing a search on an information system
corresponding to the type of search specified by the composition rule. In
4
Appeal2014-000943
Application 11/426,760
other words, Elliott's system assumes a particular type of search to perform
on a particular document, whereas the claimed invention probabilistically
determines what type of search a user is seeking to perform in order to
search the proper information system.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 62, independent claims 72 and 82 which
recited commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 62-71, 83-81, and
83-91 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 62-91 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 62-91 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5