Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

11680193 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/680, 193 02/28/2007 Ken K. Lin
52021 7590 07/30/2018
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CAM920070001US 1_8150-0029 4800
EXAMINER
PENG, HUAWEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEN K. LIN
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JEFFREY
S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejections of
claims 21-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
21. A computer-implemented method within an
information server for identifying efficiency of search templates
used to search an information source, comprising:
receiving a first search request generated using a first
search template;
receiving a second search request generated using a
second search template;
performing, using a search engine and based upon the
received first search request, a first search on the information
source;
performing, using the search engine and based upon the
received second search request, a second search on the
information source;
updating, based upon a result associated with the first
search, a first statistical record associated with the first search
template;
updating, based upon a result associated with the second
search, a second statistical record associated with the second
search template; and
ranking efficiency of the first and second search
templates based upon the first and second statistical records,
wherein
each of the first and second search templates is source
code into which search parameters are inserted,
the first statistical record includes results from a plurality
of searches performed using search requests generated with the
first search template, and
2
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
the second statistical record includes results from a
plurality of searches performed using search requests generated
with the second search template.
Scheifler
Lawrence
Tillberg
Prior Art
US 6,182,083 Bl
US 6,999,959 Bl
US 2007/0168382 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Jan.30,2001
Feb. 14,2006
July 19, 2007
Claims 21, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scheifler and Tillberg.
Claims 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scheifler, Tillberg, and Lawrence.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the decisions
made by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner. We highlight
the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection based on Scheifler and Tillberg
Appellant argues that Scheifler does not teach "receiving a second
search request generated using a second search template" and "performing,
using the second search engine and based upon the received second search
request, a second search on the information source" as recited in claim 21.
See App. Br. 10-17; Reply Br. 2-8. Appellant also argues that, as a result,
Scheifler also does not teach other limitations of claim 21 reciting the
3
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
"second search" or the "second template." Id. Appellant further argues that
Scheifler does not teach that its templates are "source code" as claimed.
App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 8.
Appellant's contention that Scheifler does not perform a second
search based on a second search request generated from a second search
template is inconsistent with the entire disclosure of Scheifler. We highlight
that Scheifler' s Abstract teaches a search engine allows query requests to be
made on a database, where each query request is generated from a
corresponding template. We also highlight that Scheifler teaches a "given
request will include a specified template." Col. 9, 1. 13. We therefore agree
with the Examiner that Scheifler teaches "receiving a second search request
generated using a second search template" within the meaning of claim 21.
Appellant's contention that Scheifler does not teach "source code" is
also unpersuasive. Although Scheifler does not explicitly use the term
"source code," Scheifler does teach implementing its method in a Java
programming language. Abstract. Appellant's Specification discloses that
"program code for carrying out operations of the present invention may be
written in an object oriented programming language such as Java." Spec.
,r 14. The scope of the term "source code" as claimed, when read in light of
Appellant's Specification, encompasses Java programming language as
taught by Scheifler.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 24, 25,
27, 30, 31, 33, 36, and 37 based on the combination of Scheifler and
Tillberg.
4
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
Section 103 rejection based on Scheifler, Tillberg, and Lawrence
Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim 21, which we
find unpersuasive as discussed above.
Further, we highlight that Lawrence teaches first and second specific
expressive forms (SEFs ), into which search parameters can be inserted when
generating a search request. Col. 10, 1. 47-col. 11, 1. 12. Lawrence's SEPs
therefore teach first and second search templates 1 within the meaning of
claim 21. For example, "x stands for" and "x means" are first and second
search templates each having a search parameter of "x." Col. 11, 11. 7-8.
Lawrence further teaches receiving search requests generated using these
templates, such as "NASDAQ stands for" and "NASDAQ means," and
performing corresponding searches. Col. 11, 11. 18-22; Fig. 22. Lawrence
teaches defining an order over the various templates, e.g., when the template
"x stands for" is more likely to find the answer than the template "x means,"
which teaches updating statistical records associated with the templates and
ranking efficiency of the templates based on the statistical records as
claimed. Col. 11, 11. 34-43; Fig. 22.
1 Our interpretation of "search template" is consistent with the use of this
term in the prior art. US Patent 6,904,433 B2, issued June 7, 2005 to
Kapitskaia et al., and identified by Appellant in an Information Disclosure
Statement mailed May 29, 2007, teaches that "a generalization of the user
network directory queries [is] referred to by the inventors as a 'query
template."' Col. 2, 11. 62-64. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358
("Prior art references may be indicative of what all those skilled in the art
generally believe a certain term means") (Citation and quotation marks
omitted).
5
Appeal 2016-008399
Application 11/680, 193
Appellant's contention that Lawrence, in combination with Scheifler
and Tillberg, would not yield the claimed invention2 is inconsistent with the
teachings of Scheifler, Tillberg, and Lawrence. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claims 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, and 38 based on the
combination of Scheifler, Tillberg, and Lawrence.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 21 - 3 8.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
Kapitskaia, alone or in combination with the art of record, renders claim 21
obvious. For example, Kapitskaia teaches executing search templates and
ranking the templates based on their benefits. See Figs. 2 and 4.
6