Ex Parte Holt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12909767 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/909,767 10/21/2010 Thomas D. Holt 6257-62902 6608
35690 7590 02/21/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS D. HOLT and LARRY S. BURKE
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections
of claims 31—53 and 55—60, i.e., all pending claims. Because the claims
have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and
134(a). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994)
(precedential).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Vision Point
Services, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the “invention relates generally to
computer based search and navigation,” and more specifically “to the use of
lexically-related strings, sub-strings, and/or search elements within one or
more dynamically-created list objects that can be used for generating a
search query or for navigation.” Spec. 12.2 The Specification explains that
“[a] user enters their search query into a search query receiver,” and “they
see, in real-time in a dynamically-generated object, such as a drop-down
menu,” showing possible matches to their search query, such as
“semantically- and lexically-related search elements that relate to” their
search query. Abstract. From the possible matches, the user can “make a
selection to further refine their search query . . . .” Id-
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 31 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
31. A method, comprising:
receiving an initial query element at a computer system
from a client computing device;
in response to receiving the initial query element, the
computer system determining a plurality of suggested query
elements that each have a specified lexical relationship to the
initial query element; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 21, 2010; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed October 23, 2014; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief,
filed July 20, 2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 30,
2015; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 29, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
causing the client computing device to display the
plurality of suggested query elements in a plurality of visually
distinct groups based on predetermined categories,
wherein each of the plurality of suggested query elements
is displayed as an element of one of the visually distinct groups,
and
wherein each of the plurality of suggested query elements
is selectable to cause the computer system to perform a search
of an information database based on the selected query element.
App. Br. 26 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Burnett US 2002/0087408 A1
Grefenstette et al. US 2003/0069877 A1
(“Grefenstette”)
Szabo US 7,181,438 B1
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 31—53 and 55—60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grefenstette and Szabo. Final Act. 4—14; App. Br. 7.
Claims 31—53 and 55—60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grefenstette and Burnett. Final Act. 15—25; App. Br. 7.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 31—53 and 55—60 in light
of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding reversible error.
Except as noted below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Non-Final
Office Action and the Answer and add the following primarily for emphasis.
July 4, 2002
Apr. 10, 2003
Feb. 20, 2007
3
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
The Rejection of Claims 31—53 and 55—60 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Grefenstette and Szabo
Displaying “Suggested Query
Elements” in “Visually Distinct Groups”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 31,41, and 51 because Szabo does not teach or suggest “displaying]
the plurality of suggested query elements in a plurality of visually distinct
groups based on predetermined categories” as recited in claim 31 and
similarly recited in claims 41 and 51. App. Br. 9—14; see Reply Br. 4. More
specifically, Appellants assert that “Szabo appears to deal at most with
groupings of search results” rather than “suggested query elements”
displayed in “visually distinct groups” according to the claims. App. Br. 9.
Appellants also assert that “Szabo teaches (at most), categorization of search
results in different windows, but is silent as to categorization of suggested
query elements.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Szabo discloses (1) improvements in a graphical
user interface that aid a user in “more rigorously defining” an initial query;
(2) using an initial query to “implement suggested relevance zones” with
zoomed-in views of various taxonomic trees predicted to be potentially
relevant; (3) displaying the suggested relevance zones in separate bounded
areas, e.g., rectangles; and (4) identifying or organizing the suggested
relevance zones based on apparent relevancy. Ans. 6—7 (citing Szabo
73:58—74:35, Figs. 4, 5a—5e, 6—15); see also Szabo 74:36—75:8.
4
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
Szabo Figure 5a illustrates this arrangement, and a relevant portion is
reproduced below:
check box input
Lifestyle Sports | Education j
t \
Pets Sc Animals Baseball | ' iScience &. j
Najure |
A-Z Animals Equipment !
1 ■
|
Environment I
Bars C^Bats S 1
.. |
/ i
t
Bats j
User selects this hyperlink, refining away ambiguity
Szabo Fig. 5a. Figure 5a shows suggested relevance zones with zoomed-in
views of various taxonomic trees displayed in separate bounded areas, i.e.,
rectangles. A user may select a particular relevance zone to refine an initial
query. Thus, Szabo teaches “displaying] the plurality of suggested query
elements in a plurality of visually distinct groups based on predetermined
categories.”
In the Reply Brief, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings
concerning Szabo’s disclosure of suggested relevance zones displayed in
separate bounded areas. Reply Br. 4.
Summary for Independent Claims 31,41, and 51
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 31,41, and 51 for
obviousness based on Grefenstette and Szabo. Hence, we sustain the
rejection.
5
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
Dependent Claims 32-36,39,40,42-45,47-50, 52, 53, and 55-60
Appellants do not present any separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 32—36, 39, 40, 42^45, 47—50, 52, 53, and 55—60. App.
Br. 7—24; Reply Br. 4—5. Because Appellants do not argue these dependent
claims separately, they stand or fall with the associated independent claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of these dependent claims based on Grefenstette and Szabo.
Dependent Claim 37
Dependent claim 37 requires the “display, for each of the plurality
suggested query elements, of a corresponding brief description of that
suggested query element.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appellants assert
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 37 because (1) the portions of
Grefenstette cited for claim 37 concern (i) document text categorization and
(ii) an “expert utility” for creating a document profile and (2) the cited
portions have no disclosure relevant to claim 37. App. Br. 22—23 (citing
Grefenstette Tflf 370, 439, Fig. 36).
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Grefenstette discloses a pop-up window that
displays an instantiated query, e.g., when a user locates a pointer in the
vicinity of an entity associated with the query. Ans. 13 (citing Grefenstette
1283, Fig. 10); see Grefenstette 1283, Fig. 10 (pop-up window 1028 with
query concerning “Xerox’s stock price”). The Specification does not define
or even discuss a “brief description” of a query element. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, that term can encompass an instantiated query as
described and depicted in Grefenstette. See Grefenstette 1283, Fig. 10. In
the Reply Brief, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that
6
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
Grefenstette discloses a pop-up window that displays an instantiated query.
Reply Br. 2—5. Moreover, we observe that Szabo Figure 5a shows brief
descriptions in each of the suggested relevance zones.
Dependent Claim 38
Dependent claim 38 requires the “display, for each of the plurality
suggested query elements, of a corresponding indication of importance for
that suggested query element.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appellants
assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38 because (1) the portion
of Grefenstette cited for claim 38 describes a “suggestion module” that
operates with an “auto-completion module” to present a ranked list of
suggestions for character string completion and (2) the cited portion has no
disclosure relevant to claim 38. App. Br. 23 (citing Grefenstette 1462).
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Grefenstette teaches representing queries “as
normalized vectors,” where “each entry indicates the importance of the word
in the search.” Ans. 15 (citing Grefenstette ]Hf 393—96). Hence, Grefenstette
teaches or suggests displaying an indication of importance for a query. In
the Reply Brief, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that
Grefenstette teaches representing queries with an indication of importance.
Reply Br. 2—5.
Dependent Claim 46
Dependent claim 46 specifies that “one or more of the suggested
query elements includes a title of a work produced by an artist associated
with the initial query element.” App. Br. 29 (Claims App.). Appellants
argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 46 because (1) the portion
of Grefenstette cited for claim 46 describes the use of proper names for
7
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
recognizing entities mentioned in documents and (2) the cited portion
“cannot fairly be said to teach or suggest” claim 46’s subject matter. App.
Br. 24 (citing Grefenstette 1157).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Grefenstette teaches a method for identifying or
searching for entities mentioned in documents, such as “people” and “book
titles.” Ans. 17 (citing Grefenstette Tflf 155—57). Hence, Grefenstette
teaches or suggests associating queries for “book titles” with queries for the
“people” who created those works.
The Rejection of Claims 31—53 and 55—60 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Grefenstette and Burnett
Displaying “Suggested Query
Elements” in “Visually Distinct Groups”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 31,41, and 51 because Burnett does not teach or suggest
“displaying] the plurality of suggested query elements in a plurality of
visually distinct groups based on predetermined categories” as recited in
claim 31 and similarly recited in claims 41 and 51. App. Br. 17—22; see
Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants contend that “Burnett appears to
teach (at most) that search results might be categorized.” Reply Br. 5. In
addition, Appellants contend that “displaying search results in hierarchical
categories” according to Burnett “has no relevance to” displaying “suggested
query elements” in “visually distinct groups” according to the claims. Id.
The Examiner cites various portions of Burnett as relevant to
displaying “suggested query elements” in “visually distinct groups.”
Non-Final Act. 17—19 (citing Burnett H 16, 114, 149, 226, 229, 238—39,
247-48, 309, 312, 317, 350-55, Figs. 6A-6C, Claim 34); Ans. 8-11 (citing
8
Appeal 2016-002528
Application 12/909,767
Burnett 11 15-16, 35-36, 58-79, 114, 149, 226, 229, 238-39, 247-48, 309,
312, 317, 350-55, Figs. 6A—6C, Claim 34). The Examiner does not,
however, explain how the cited portions of Burnett teach or suggest
displaying “suggested query elements” in “visually distinct groups.”
Non-Final Act. 17—19; Ans. 8—11.
Based on the record before us, we concur with Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated how the
cited portions of Grefenstette and Burnett teach or suggest displaying
“suggested query elements” in “visually distinct groups.” Consequently, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 31, 41, and
51 based on Grefenstette and Burnett. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 32-40, 42—50, 52, 53,
and 55—60 based on Grefenstette and Burnett.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31—53 and 55—60.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9