Ex Parte MacDonald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

13152175 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
13/152,175 06/02/2011 Roderick William MacDonald 814200-US-NP 6342
59978 7590 12/29/2016
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
EXAMINER
WONG, HUEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
patent @ csglaw. com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODERICK WILLIAM MacDONALD,
HAO TANG, HAIJUN CAO, and
KUMARAN SANGAREDDI
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to web-based content categorization. Spec.,
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in
italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for categorizing web pages comprising:
a memory unit for storing instructions; and
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
a processing unit for executing instructions stored in the
memory unit, the instructions, when executed by the processing
unit configuring the system to provide:
a plurality of rules, each rule comprising a matching
expression and associated categorization information;
a plurality of categorization algorithms, each of the
categorization algorithms for providing a category result for
a content pointer indicating a particular content according to
at least one of the plurality of rules, wherein at least one of
the plurality of categorization algorithms apply different ones
of the plurality of rules to the content pointer than at least
another one of the plurality of categorization algorithms to
provide the category result; and
a lookup component for receiving a requested content
pointer and successively selecting a categorization algorithm
from the plurality of categorization algorithms, based on a
complexity of the categorization algorithm, to apply to the
requested content pointer until one of the plurality of
categorization algorithms provides the category result for the
content pointer.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mirandette US 2012/0271941 A1 Oct. 25, 2012
REJECTION1
The Examiner rejects claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Mirandette. Final Act. 9—28.
1 The rejection of claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has
been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Mirandette’s rule engine applies all rules without regard to whether
one of the rules provides a category result for the content pointer as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 6—7.
2. “[T]he rule based categorization engine and semantic based
categorization engine in the cited portions of Mirandette are not
‘successively selected . . . based on a complexity’” as required by the
disputed limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2—28) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—11) and
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue:
[Sjince the cited portions of Mirandette execute instructions to
interpret metadata, and all information of the text based rules is
present in the metadata, it follows that all rules in the cited
portions of Mirandette are applied by rule engine 70, without
regard as to whether one of the rules “provides the category result
for the content pointer.”
App. Br. 6. Therefore, Appellants argue, Mirandette fails to disclose
applying rules “until one of the plurality of categorization algorithms
3
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
provides the category result for the content pointer” as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds by finding Mirandette’s
plurality of rule based algorithms, as a whole, are applied to categorize
a URL and, if no category can be assigned, a more complex sematic
based categorization algorithm is only then used for categorization.
Ans. 5—6. The Examiner finds
The feature of “successively selecting a
categorization algorithm from the plurality of
categorization algorithms . . . until one of the plurality of
categorization algorithms provides the category result for
the content pointer” is taught by Mirandette because
Mirandette teaches that “when a URL 72 submitted to the
rule based categorization engine 70 cannot be assigned a
category (because this URL is not covered by the list of
rules of the rule based categorization engine)”. The rules
in the list are processed successively and passed to a
semantic based categorization algorithm until a category
is provided (“category sport/tennis” and “fmance/stock
markets”, for examples) and a semantic based
categorization algorithm is applied when a URL (content
pointer) remains not categorized (Mirandette: at least
10039).
Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention 1. Mirandette selects a
first “‘optimized [rule based] algorithm to associate a category to the URL
chosen among a list of pre-defmed categories.” Mirandette 128.
furthermore, a “URL that has not been recognized ... is then submitted to a
semantic based categorization engine 100 [which] performs a semantic
analysis of the textual content [of the web page], and infer the best matching
category for this textual content.” Mirandette H 39, 41. Therefore, we
4
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
agree with the Examiner in finding Mirandette discloses successively
selecting a categorization algorithm (i.e., first successively applying the rule
based algorithms and then, if the URL is not recognized, the semantic based
categorization engine) until one of the plurality of categorization algorithms
provides the category result for the content pointer (Mirandette discloses the
semantic based categorization engine is employed only if the rule based
algorithm fails).
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue “[t]he cited portions
of Mirandette ... do not teach or suggest at least, ‘successively selecting a
categorization algorithm from the plurality of categorization algorithms,
based on a complexity of the categorization algorithm.’” App. Br. 7. In
response, the Examiner finds Mirandette teaches a plurality of less complex
algorithms that make use of rules to assign an associated category and, only
if necessary, uses a more complex sematic based categorization algorithm if
the less complex algorithms cannot categorize a URL. Ans. 9. The
Examiner further explains how the semantic based categorization operates
and concludes “Mirandette’s semantic based categorization algorithm makes
use of a rule comprising a matching expression that matches textual input
textual to provide [a] category result.” Ans. 10-11 (emphasis omitted).
Therefore, the Examiner finds Mirandette discloses the disputed limitation
of successively selecting a categorization algorithm from the plurality of
categorization algorithms, based on a complexity of the categorization
algorithm. Final Act. 11—12, Ans. 11.
We are not persuaded by contention 2. Mirandette discloses using a
semantic based categorization algorithm only after “a URL 72 submitted to
the rule based categorization engine 70 cannot be assigned a category
5
Appeal 2016-002040
Application 13/152,175
(because this URL is not covered by the list of rules of the rule based
categorization engine).” Mirandette 139 (emphasis omitted). Because
Mirandette first selects the simpler rule based categorization algorithm
before turning, in sequence, to the more complex semantic based
categorization algorithm, the process is based on a complexity of the
categorization algorithm as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we disagree
Mirandette is deficient for the reasons argued in connection with contention
2.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Mirandette together with the rejection of dependent
claims 2—9 and 11—20 which are not argued separately.2
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously
presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate
patentability of the two claims.
6