Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12277891 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/277,891 11125/2008
30671 7590 08/23/2016
DITTHA VONG & STEINER, P,C
Keth Ditthavong
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ZhigangLiu
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.
P3058USOO 6846
EXAMINER
SPOONER, LAMONT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIGANG LIU and PETER BODA
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891 1
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, HUNG H. BUI, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-25, 27-31, and 33-35.
Claims 4, 10, 15, 21, 26, and 32 are cancelled. (Answer 15-21.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to providing context aware queries in a
network. A question is directed to a question answering service from an
originating node, and routed to one or more candidate nodes selected based
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
at least in part on context information associated with the question. An
answer is received from a candidate node and provided to the originating
node based at least in part on result parameters associated with the
originating node. (Abstract.)
Representative Claims
Claim l, reproduced below with certain key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a question directed to a question answering service
from an originating node;
routing the question to one or more candidate nodes selected
based at least in part on context information associated
with the question;
receiving an answer to the question from at least one of the
candidate nodes;
providing the answer to the originating node based at least in part
on result parameters associated with the originating node,
wherein providing the answer comprises providing the
ans1lver based at least in part on result parameters defining
a set of nodes to which the question is routable and a
response time by which the answer is to be provided;
enabling direct communication between the originating node
and a candidate node providing the answer in response to
an indication of mutual assent from the originating node
and the candidate node; and
indicating the degree of separation between the originating node
and the at least one of the candidate nodes, wherein the
enablement of direction [sic] communication between the
originating node and the candidate node is based, at least
in part, on the degree of separation.
2
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11- 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-
25, 27, 28, 30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raichur et
al. (US 2001/0034015 Al; pub. Oct. 25, 2001), En (JP 2002259727A; pub.
Sep. 13, 2002), and Tam et al. (2006/0117378 Al; pub. June 1, 2006).
(Final Action 5-16.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Raichur, En, Tam, and Overstreet (US 8,060,390B1; iss. Nov.
15, 2011). (Final Action 16-17.)
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 20, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Raichur, En, Tam, and Heck (US 2009/0162824 Al; iss. June
25, 2009). (Final Action 17-18.)
Issues
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Raichur teaches or
suggests providing an answer "based at least in part on result parameters
defining a set of nodes to which the question is routable," as recited in claim
l?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding that En teaches or suggests
"enabling direct communication between the originating node and a
candidate node providing the answer in response to an indication of mutual
assent from the originating node and the candidate node," as recited in claim
l?
3
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
ANALYSIS
(A) providing an answer "based at least in part on result
parameters defining a set of nodes to which the question is
routable"
The Examiner finds Raichur discloses a question and answer system
in which an originating node provides an answer based at least in part on
result parameters defining nodes (answering experts in Raichur.) (Final
Action 5---6.) Raichur relates to a system in which a user provides a
question, and receives an answer from a human expert. (Raichur, Abstract.)
Raichur teaches that a question, such as a legal question, is assigned a topic
and jurisdiction or geographic area, and then the experts to whom the
question will be forwarded are selected based on this assignment. (Id. i-fi-142,
44--46.)
The Examiner finds that both the "routing the question" limitation in
claim 1 and the disputed limitation that the answer be provided "based at
least in part on result parameters defining a set of nodes to which the
question is routable" are taught or suggested by Raichur' s disclosure that an
answering expert is determined based on the criteria assigned based on the
question. (Final Action 5---6.)
Appellants argue that there is no result parameter in Raichur used to
define a set of nodes to which the question is routable. (Appeal Br. 8-11;
Reply Br. 2.) Appellants argue that Raichur's assignment is based on the
question and, as such, is not based on result parameters "associated with the
originating node." (Id.) In particular, Appellants argue that, "Raichur et al.
teaches selecting experts to provide answers to questions based on the
criteria of the 'Answering Experts,' and not based on any result parameters
of an originating node." (Reply Br. 2) and that "Raichur et al. is void of any
4
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
result parameters that are associated with the human user and that define the
human expert." (Appeal Br. 9.)
The Examiner explains that, in Raichur, the criteria are determined
"from the nature of the question from the user" and are thus associated with
the user. (Ans. 3.)
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Appellant's Specification describes that:
the result parameters associated with a particular questioner
may define the audience to which questions may be posed
and/or response time for receiving answers. In other words, for
example, the user may dictate that the communication manager
78 provide routing services within a predetermined period of
time (e.g., within a defined response time). The response time
(and/ or audience) allowed for any particular question may be
based on the subscription level or other indications received
from the questioner related to a desired cost for the
corresponding question. For example, if the questioner desires
real-time or near real-time service, which may be limited by
definition to service provided within about a few minutes or a
few dozen seconds, the questioner may pay higher rates than a
question for which a response is desired within one or a few
hours. As such, the user may choose result parameters that
govern coverage and speed and determine cost.
(Spec. i-f 46.) Thus, Appellants' Specification allows result parameters set by
the user on a per-question basis.
Appellants have interpreted the claim term "associated with the
originating node" overly narrowly as not including an association with the
question from the originating node. We find that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the Appellants' claim term "result parameters associated
5
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
with the originating node" includes at least information encompassed in or
derived from the specific question received from the user. This is consistent
with the Specification's disclosure that a result parameter may be a per-
question parameter. (Spec. i-f 46.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Raichur discloses the result parameters associated with the originating node
used to define a set of nodes to which the question is routable as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 12,
23, and 24.
(B) "enabling direct communication between the originating
node and a candidate node providing the answer in response
to an indication of mutual assent from the originating node
and the candidate node "
Appellants argue that the Examiner's findings regarding En and
Raichur's teachings with respect to direct communication between an
originating node (user) and a candidate node providing the answer (expert)
are flawed. The Examiner finds the combination of Raichur and En teaches
or suggests this limitation. (Final Action 4, 6; Answer 3-5.) In particular,
the Examiner finds ( 1) En teaches either or both parties can choose to be
non-anonymous, and (2) Raichurteaches that the feature removing
personally identifying information in the question can be disabled to allow
parties to reveal their identities. (Final Action 4, 6; Answer 3-5.)
The cited paragraph of En states that En's mediation server:
presupposes un-publishing whether either or both sides consider
self status or communication method as printing (non-
anonymity), a self status, or a communication method
(anonymity). In the situation where either chose anonymity,
each transmission and reception of the information in the
direction of it are performed by transmitting a mediation server,
6
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
therefore this gentleman does not have a possibility that self
status and communication method may be leaked, and, for this
reason, the hope of a question or an answer increases.
(En ii 6.)
Appellants argue that this does not teach direct communication in
response to an indication of mutual assent. (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3.)
We disagree. En teaches that if either side were to "chose anonymity"
transmissions occur via "mediation server." (En ii 6.) While the translation
in En is somewhat opaque regarding what would happen when neither side
chooses anonymity ("self status or communication as printing"), additional
disclosure in En further explains that this encompasses direct connection
with a potential panelist (expert.) (Id. ii 16.) Additionally, we agree with
the Examiner that Raichur teaches that the consumer may reveal identifying
information if they wish, enabling direct communication. (Raichur ii 28,
see also ii 22 (contrasting anonymity with a direct phone call between user
and expert.))
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Raichur discloses the disputed limitation regarding enabling direct
communication in response to an indication of mutual assent as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 12,
23, and 24.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 12, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raichur, En, and Tam, and
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 22, 27,
28, 30, and 33 not separately argued. Additionally, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Raichur, En, Tam, and Overstreet, and the Examiner's
7
Appeal2015-001677
Application 12/277,891
rejection of claims 9, 20, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Raichur, En, Tam, and Heck, argued on the same basis. (Appeal Br. 12.)
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments presented against claim 1, and do not direct us to any error in the
Examiner's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Rather, the Appellants
merely repeat the claim language of claims 2 and 3 and summarily state that
Raichur and En are "conspicuously silent" with regards to the claims.
(Appeal Br. 11.) We find the Appellants' statements do not amount to
arguments in support of the separate patentability of claims 2 and 3 under 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iii) (2014). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding element were not
found in the prior art."). Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 3,
and of claims 13, 14, 24 and 25 which recite similar limitations, is sustained
for the reasons set forth above sustaining the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14,
16-20, 22-25, 27-31, and 33-35.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
8