Ex Parte Joshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

12116195 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 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.
12/116,195 05/06/2008 Deepa Joshi YAHOP056 6609
25920 7590 04/26/2017
MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
WONG, HUEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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 DEEPA JOSHI, INGRID LESTIYO, MIKE WEXLER,
and ASHISH SHUKLA
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,1951
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—10, 12, and 14—36,2 which constitute all of the pending claims
in the application on appeal. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Yahoo! Inc. See
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6, 11, and 13 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 20-21.
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,195
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to generating topic
pages through an algorithm that assembles contents in response to analyzing
a search query. Spec. 11.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 24, and 28 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with disputed limitation (the “disputed limitation”)
italicized:
1. A method for generating a topic page for a query,
comprising:
(a) analyzing the query to identify a plurality of
dimensions, wherein the plurality of dimensions identified from
the query includes a geo location associated with the query, one
or more topics associated with the geo location of the query and
one or more intents for the one or more topics, wherein the geo
location is identified by one or more of a website location, a user
location and a query location, the one or more topics and one or
more intents are identified in relation to the identified geo
location;
(b) ranking the plurality of dimensions identified for the
geo location, the ranking based on prior user interactions at one
or more content modules selected and provided from a plurality
of sources at the geo location;
(c) selecting the content modules from the select ones of
the plurality of sources in accordance to the ranking of the
plurality of dimensions associated with the geo location, the
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents for their
respective details: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed May 6, 2008
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 3,
2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 4, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. ”) mailed December 3, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 3, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,195
selected content modules including distinct and recent content
retrieved from the respective sources matching select one or
more of the plurality of dimensions; and
(d) generating the topic page with the selected content
modules for the geo location.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Sheha et al. (“Sheha”)
Henkin et al. (“Henkin”)
Rasmussen et al.
(“Rasmussen”)
Jeh et al. (“Jeh”)
Licon et al. (“Licon”)
US 2003/0036848 Al
US 2005/0149395 Al
US 2005/0270311 Al
US 2007/0162424 Al
US 7,424,278 B2
Feb. 20, 2003
July 7, 2005
Dec. 8, 2005
July 12, 2007
Sept. 9, 2008
ProQuest, Summary of Google Hacking for Penetration Test,
ProQuest Information and Learning,
http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/ 1931836361 (2004) (“Long”).
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1,2, and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Henkin. Final Act. 6—8.
(2) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rasmussen, Henkin, and Jeh. Final Act. 9-11.
(3) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rasmussen, Henkin, and Long. Final Act. 11—12.
(4) Claims 7—10, 12, and 14—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rasmussen, Henkin, and Sheha. Final
Act. 12-33.
3
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,195
(5) Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rasmussen, Henkin, Sheha, and Licon. Final
Act. 33-36.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of
Rasmussen and Henkin teaches or suggests “ranking the plurality of
dimensions identified for the geo location, the ranking based on prior user
interactions at one or more content modules selected and provided from a
plurality of sources at the geo location,” as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Henkin
teaches the disputed limitation because Henkin discloses “the ranking of an
identified taxonomy keyword.” Final Act. 7; Ans. 3 (citing Henkin H 55,
56). The Examiner finds Rasmussen teaches the plurality of dimensions
identified for a geo location. Final Act. 6 (citing Rasmussen Figs 8, 24, and
184).
Appellants argue “Henkin does not teach ranking [the] plurality of
dimensions identified for the geo location” because “[rjanking keywords that
are found within a web page to assign a topic to the web page is not the same
4
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,195
as ranking different dimensions identified for a query, such as geo location,
topics and intents for the geo location associated with the query.” Appeal
Br. 12 (emphases omitted). That is, Henkin’s “[rjanking keywords that are
found within a web page to assign a topic to the web page is not the same as
ranking different dimensions identified for a query, such as geo location,
topics and intents for the geo location associated with the query,” and is not
the same as ranking based on prior user interactions at one or more content
modules, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds “Henkin is not relied upon for the teaching of
geo location dimension. Henkin teaches ranking of keywords (for example,
10056 of Henkin) that can be applied to the identified dimensions (search
keywords in a query) taught by Rasmussen.” Ans. 9.
We do not agree the Examiner’s finding is supported by substantial
evidence because the Examiner fails to establish how Henkin’s ranking of
keywords identified in a web page teaches “ranking the plurality of
dimensions,” of a query, as claimed. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 9. Moreover,
although Henkin teaches ranking a plurality of keywords, the rankings are
with regard to the keywords and not based on prior user interactions at one
or more content modules as claimed (see, Henkin H35, 53, 55, and 63).
Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 12. That is, although the Examiner finds Henkin ranks
keywords based on “previous performance indicators (e.g.,
clicks/impressions)” (Final Act. 7 (citing Henkin 1 55)), Henkin’s
clicks/impressions are based on user’s interaction with the keyword itself,
not based on prior user interactions at one or more content modules, as
claimed. See Henkin Fig. 11, H 62-63 (emphases added). The Examiner
also cites to paragraph 56 of Henkin. Final Act. 7. Paragraph 56, however,
5
Appeal 2016-003170
Application 12/116,195
describes processing “[a]fter the identified taxonomy keywords have been
ranked” (see Henkin | 56), and therefore does not teach or suggest details of
keywords’ ranking.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown how or where Henkin,
alone or in combination with Rasmussen, teaches or suggests “ranking the
plurality of dimensions identified for the geo location, the ranking based on
prior user interactions at one or more content modules selected and provided
from a plurality of sources at the geo location,” as claimed.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
establish the combination of Rasmussen and Henkin would have rendered
claim 1 obvious. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive
arguments advanced by Appellants for claim 1, we need not reach the merits
of Appellants’ other contentions. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2014).
We, therefore, reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1. Because the Examiner does not rely on Sheha to cure the
deficiency of the obviousness rejection discussed above, we also reverse the
rejection of independent claims 9, 24, and 28, which recite commensurate
limitations. We further reverse the rejections of dependent claims 2—5, 7, 8,
10, 12, and 14—23, 25—27, and 29-36, which fall with their respective
independent claims.
DECISION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 1—5, 7—10, 12, and 14—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6