Ex Parte Lawrence et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201310815074 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHEN R. LAWRENCE, NINIANE WANG, and DAVID MARMAROS ____________ Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,0741 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Google, Inc. Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,074 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is a system and method for weighting a search query result. In an embodiment, a query system determines a first article identifier associated with a source and receives an input signal indicating an interest in the first article identifier. The query system then determines a second article identifier associated with the source and determines a score associated with the second article identifier based at least in part on the input signal (Spec. 3). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method for ranking information, comprising: receiving a plurality of query results of a plurality of search queries that were submitted separately; merging the plurality of query results into a merged query result, the merged query result being associated with the plurality of search queries; determining a first ranking sequence of the merged query result; presenting the merged query result to a user according to the first ranking sequence; identifying an input signal from the user indicating an interest in a first piece of information in the merged query result; identifying a search query from the plurality of search queries associated with the merged query result, the identified search query being associated with a query result including the first piece of information, the query result from among the plurality of query results; adjusting a query factor associated with the identified search query responsive to the input signal; Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,074 3 locating a second piece of information in the query result associated with the identified search query; determining a score for the second piece of information based at least in part on the query factor associated with the identified search query; determining a second ranking sequence of the merged query result based at least in part on the score; and presenting the merged query result to the user according to the second ranking sequence. REFERENCES Barrett US 2003/0135490 A1 Jul. 17, 2003 Liu US 7,099,860 B1 Aug. 29, 2006 (filed Oct. 30, 2000) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15-18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Liu. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Barrett. Claims 13, 14, 19, 20, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu. ISSUE Appellants argue, inter alia, that Liu does not disclose a plurality of separately submitted search queries (App. Br. 10-11). Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Does Liu teach receiving a plurality of query results of a plurality of search queries that were submitted separately? Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,074 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ANALYSIS The independent claims under appeal (1, 18, and 25) each recite receiving a plurality of query results of a plurality of search queries that were submitted separately. The Examiner finds that Liu teaches this limitation (Ans. 4). In reviewing the Examiner’s finding, however, we disagree with the Examiner that any of the cited sections of Liu teach a plurality of search queries. Liu column 3, lines 23-25, refers to a single query. Column 7, line 67 to column 8, line 10, discloses a user entering and submitting a single query (“tigers”). Column 12, step 1, says “[c]ollect the user query keywords” (emphasis added). The Examiner’s argument (Ans. 24) that Liu starts from the user- submitted query (“tigers”) and “may also simultaneously search of similar words (e.g., cat, animal, etc.)” (col. 8, ll. 13-14) is not persuasive to establish plural queries. Liu states that a user submits an initial query (col. 7, l. 65), and a keyword within that query causes the system to search similar words. We further disagree with the Examiner that Liu supports submitting queries separately (Ans. 4). Column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 7 of Liu is concerned with a single query passed to a query handler that extracts keywords. Column 8, lines 11-14 teach searching similar words (cat, animal) based on an initial query submitted by a user. Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,074 5 Last, we agree with Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in equating the term “query” with the term “keyword” (Reply Br. 2). Even though it is possible for a query to be made up of a single keyword, the two terms are not equivalent. We find that Liu does not teach all the limitations of the independent claims under appeal. Accordingly, we further find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15-18, and 21-26 as being anticipated by Liu, and we will not sustain the § 102 rejection. CLAIM 3 We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. We have reviewed Barrett, and we find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of Liu. Thus, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 3, for the reasons given with respect to claim 1. CLAIMS 13, 14, 19, 20, 27, AND 28 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 25, from which these claims variously depend. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in asserting the prima facie obviousness of claims 13, 14, 19, 20, 27, and 28 over Liu alone. We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. CONCLUSION Liu does not teach receiving a plurality of query results of a plurality of search queries that were submitted separately. Appeal 2010-009011 Application 10/815,074 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation