Ex Parte Herscovici et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 1, 2010

10605208 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL HERSCOVICI, REINER KRAFT, RONNY LEMPEL,
and JASON YEONG ZIEN
___________

Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 1, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAY P. LUCAS, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2008).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION
The invention on appeal is directed generally to the field of
information retrieval. More particularly, the invention on appeal is related to
automatic query routing and rank configuration (for search queries) in an
information retrieval system. (Spec. 1, Para. [0001]).

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for identifying documents most relevant to a
query from a collection of documents that is organized based on
a set of indices, said method comprising the steps of:

a) determining a query class for a received query based
on statistical information regarding query terms of said received
query and lexical affinities associated with permutations of said
query terms, said query class associated with a routing function
and a ranking function, said routing function capable of
determining subsets of the collection that most likely include
the most relevant documents, and said ranking function capable
of sorting the documents in terms of relevancy;

b) identifying a set of indices most relevant to said query;

c) identifying a set of documents related to said query
based on said determined indices, said identification performed
via passing said ranking function associated with said
determined query class along with said query to each search
engine that manages a determined index from a collection of
relevant indices;

d) collecting results ranked based upon said ranking
function and merging and sorting said collected results by
relevancy; and

Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

3

e) returning a subset of the highest ranked documents as
the documents most relevant to the query.

PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence:
Christianson US 6,085,186 Jul. 4, 2000

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Christianson.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, we decide the appeal
on the basis of representative claim 1.1 See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

1 Appellants state that the arguments set forth “with respect to
independent claims 1 and 8 substantially apply to independent claims 12 and
17.” (App. Br. 13, ¶ 3, first sentence). Appellants additionally state
that“[f]urthermore, the above-mentioned arguments with respect to
independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 17 substantially apply to dependent claims
2-7, 9-11, 13- 16 and 18-19 as they inherit all the features of the claim from
which they depend.” (App. Br. 14). While Appellants reproduce certain
claims in the Brief (pp. 8-14) with selected limitations emphasized in bold
and underlined, we note that a statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Moreover, arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

4

ISSUE
Appellants contend that the portions of Christianson relied on by the
Examiner do not disclose the “query class” of Appellants’ claims 1 and 8.
(App. Br. 9, ¶ 3). Appellants acknowledge that “Christianson uses similar
terminologies.” (App. Br. 9, ¶3, first sentence). However, Appellants
maintain that Christianson’s “conceptual classes” are not based on statistical
information regarding query terms of said received query and lexical
affinities associated with permutations of said query terms. (App. Br. 9-10).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds that “Christianson
teaches at Col. 14 lines 50-60 the step of assigning [the] relevant concept (or
‘conceptual class’) to query words.” (Ans. 9). The Examiner states that
“Christianson determines [the] ‘conceptual class’ associated with a query by
examining each word of the query. Particularly, Christianson at Col. 9 lines
5-10 . . . [discloses] the step of determining the query class (i.e., information
source's relevance) for a query by counting the number of query words
(i.e. ‘statistical information regarding query terms’.).” (Ans. 10).

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Christianson
discloses or describes “a query class for a received query
based on statistical information regarding query terms of
said received query and lexical affinities associated with
permutations of said query terms?” (Representative
independent claim 1).
Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation under § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACT
In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF):

Appellants’ Specification
1. Appellants use the term “permutations” interchangeably with
“combinations.” (Spec. para. [0029], “combinations (permutations)”).

2. Appellants describe “lexical affinities” as “terms that appear close to
each other within a certain range.” (Spec. para. [0012], ll. 6-7).

Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

6

3. Appellants describe “query classes” in terms of query categories:
It should be noted that the preferred embodiment
discloses a broad case wherein only two query categories
are described: one for navigational queries and one for
information queries. However, in addition to classifying a
query to a query category, a different methodology can
be used to calculate a rank configuration.

(Spec. para. [0023], emphasis added).

The Christianson Reference
4. Christianson discloses “[t]he preferred query router is based on the
principle of assigning relevant concepts to information sources and
query words . . . . Further, each word that can appear in possible
queries is examined to determine which of the chosen concepts are
relevant to the word. Then, upon receiving the words or keywords of a
query, the concepts associated with these words are determined, and
then the information sources relevant to these concepts are found.”
(Col. 14, ll. 49-51 and 55-61).

5. Christianson discloses “[i]n an exemplary embodiment, for queries
requesting the presence either of all query words or of any query
words, the estimate is determined by scanning the page and counting
the number of query words actually present, and then scaling the
count so that the presence of all words results in the common
maximum relevance value. For queries requesting the presence of a
phrase, the estimate is determined, for example, by subtracting from
the common maximum a normalized sum of the square of the distance
in the page of each word of the phrase from its successor word in the
Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

7

phrase. Thereby, if the phrase appears contiguously in the page the
relevance is high, whereas if the words of the phrase are widely
separated on the page, the relevance is low.” (Col. 9, ll. 5-17).

6. Christianson describes “conceptual classes” in terms of groupings of
“similar sorts of information.” (Col. 4, ll. 30-32).

ANALYSIS
ISSUE 1
We decide the question of whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Christianson discloses or describes “a query class for a received query based
on statistical information regarding query terms of said received query and
lexical affinities associated with permutations of said query terms.”
(Representative independent claim 1).
We begin our analysis by focusing on the scope of the claim term
“query class.” During prosecution, “the PTO gives claims their ‘broadest
reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
We observe that Appellants have not pointed to any particular
supporting definition in the Specification. However, when we look to
Appellants’ Specification for context, we note that Appellants broadly
describe “query classes” in terms of query categories:
It should be noted that the preferred embodiment discloses
a broad case wherein only two query categories are
described: one for navigational queries and one for information
queries. However, in addition to classifying a
query to a query category, a different methodology can be
used to calculate a rank configuration.
Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

8

(FF 3, underline added).
Thus, consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we broadly but
reasonably construe the recited “query class” as reading on any category or
class of queries. We interpret a “class” as broadly but reasonably reading on
groups of similar or related information.
Given this broad but reasonable construction, we find no support for
Appellants’ contention that Christianson’s “conceptual classes” are not
“query classes,” as claimed. (See e.g., App. Br. 9). Moreover, we are of the
view that Appellants have at least provided tacit support for the Examiner’s
position by admitting in the record that “Christianson uses similar
technologies.” (App. Br. 9, ¶ 3). Thus, the question before us is whether
Christianson’s “similar technologies” (as described by Appellants) are
sufficiently similar to fall within the broad scope of Appellants’
representative claim 1. Based on our review of the evidence, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
Since we construe a “query class” as reading on any category or class
of queries (where a “class” reads on groups of similar or related
information), we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ “query class”
broadly but reasonably reads on Christianson’s “conceptual classes” that are
described in terms of groupings of “similar sorts of information.” (FF 6; see
also FF 4: “relevant concepts” associated with “information sources”).
However, Appellants aver that Christianson’s “conceptual classes” are not
based on statistical information regarding query terms of said received
query and lexical affinities associated with permutations of said query terms
(App. Br. 9-10). We broadly but reasonably construe the claim terms “based
on” and “associated with” to read on any nexus or relationship.
Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

9

Regarding the claimed “lexical affinities,” we note that Appellants
describe “lexical affinities” in their Specification as “terms that appear close
to each other within a certain range.” (FF 2).
Turning to the reference, we find Christianson discloses “[f]or queries
requesting the presence of a phrase, the estimate is determined, for example,
by subtracting from the common maximum a normalized sum of the square
of the distance in the page of each word of the phrase from its successor
word in the phrase.” (FF 5).
Thus, we find Christianson discloses “query classes” (conceptual
classes) based on statistical information (e.g., a normalized sum) regarding
query terms of said received query and lexical affinities (e.g., distance in the
page of each word of the phrase from its successor word in). (Id.).
We also find that Christianson discloses the claimed statistical
information and lexical affinities are associated with permutations of said
query terms, given that Appellants’ Specification uses the term
“permutations” interchangeably with the term “combinations.” (FF 1).
Thus, we find any combination of query terms (as disclosed by Christianson)
is a “permutation” of query terms within the meaning of Appellants’
representative claim 1.
Given our aforementioned claim construction, we find the evidence
before us supports the Examiner’s position. Claims 2-19 fall with
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-003731
Application 10/605,208

10

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above:
The Examiner did not err in finding that Christianson discloses or
describes “a query class for a received query based on statistical information
regarding query terms of said received query and lexical affinities associated
with permutations of said query terms.” (Representative independent claim
1).

ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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

pgc

IP AUTHORITY, LLC
RAMRAJ SOUNDARARAJAN
4821A Eisenhower Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22304