Ex Parte Maghoul et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

11838850 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

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.
11/838,850 08/14/2007 Farzin Maghoul 50269-1253 7446
73066 7590 07/30/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo!
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
HOSSEINI, REZA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2014 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 FARZIN MAGHOUL and SHIV RAMAMURTHI
____________

Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12, and 14–24.
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 13 were canceled. (App. Br. 2). Appellants appeal
from the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
2
INVENTION
This invention relates to organizing search results. (Spec. 1, ¶ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[a] identifying terms to be included in an index of terms
associated with only a single specific intent by
monitoring a set of users' searching behavior;
[b] wherein said specific intent includes an intent to find
information relevant to a location;
[c] receiving a request to retrieve information stored on a
computer system,
[d] wherein the request includes at least one search term;
[e1] in response to receiving the request:
[e2] comparing said at least one search term to said index of
terms;
[e3] determining whether said at least one search term matches
a term in said index of terms;
[f1] in response to determining that said at least one search term
matches a term in said index of terms:
[f2] determining a user's location, and
[f3] identifying information relevant to said user's
location; and
[g] outputting said information-relevant to said user's location.
(steps lettered).
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 21–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2006/0064411 A1 to Gross et al. ("Gross") and U.S. Patent
No. 7,574,420 B2 to Bates et al. ("Bates"). (Ans. 6).
Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
3
R2. Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gross, Bates, and U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2004/0093325 A1 to Banerjee et al. ("Banerjee"). (Ans.
23).
ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
Regarding the claim 1 limitations:
[f1] in response to determining that said at least one search term
matches a term in said index of terms:
[f2] determining a user's location, and
[f3] identifying information relevant to said user's
location; and
[g] outputting said information-relevant to said user's location.
Appellants contend:
Instead, paragraph 66 of Gross (cited in the Office Actions)
merely states that the geographic location of a user that
submitted a search query is derived from an IP address. In fact,
paragraph 66 of Gross is about post-search query processing.
The IP address of a user is not determined (a) in response to
receiving a request and (b) prior to outputting information
relevant to the user's location, as Claim 1 requires. In fact,
Gross makes no further mention of how geographic location
is used.
(App. Br. 8).
Appellants further contend "[w]hile Bates discusses geographic
regions, the user's location is not relevant. (App. Br. 9).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. The Examiner fails to show
the combination of references teaches or suggests limitations [f3] and [g].
Specifically, while Gross’s paragraph 66 discloses a user's location ( IP
Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
4
address ) in a surf history log (¶¶ 66–68), the Examiner fails to show how
Gross and Bates, alone or in combination, teach or suggest limitation [f3]:
"identifying information relevant to the user's location," and limitation [g].
(Ans. 7–8, 29–31; claim 1).
For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection R1 of claim 1, and the rejection
R1 of associated dependent claims 4–9, 11, 12, 14, and 22. We additionally
reverse the rejection R2 of associated dependent claims 15, 16, and 20 (over
the combined teachings and suggestions of Gross, Bates, and Banerjee),
because Examiner has not established how the tertiary Banerjee reference
overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Gross and Bates, as relied on
in rejection R1.
CLAIM 19
Regarding the claim 19 limitations: (Steps lettered)
[b] in response to receiving the request:
[b1] determining, from among a plurality of different
types of devices, a particular type of device that
sent the request;
[b2] if the particular type of device is of a first type, then
comparing said at least one search term to a first
index of terms of the plurality of indexes of terms;
[b3] if the particular type of device is of a second type
that is different than the first type, then comparing
said at least one search term to a second index of
terms of the plurality of indexes of terms;
Appellants contend:
the cited portions of Bates merely refer to (1) different types of
devices upon which Bates' computer system 100 may be
implemented; (2) different types of networks to which Bates'
computer system 100 may be connected; (3) an index; and (4)
Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
5
an I/O device interface. Fundamentally, Bates (like Gross) fails
to teach or suggest that the type of device that sent the request
is a factor in determining which index of terms, of a plurality
of indexes of terms, is used to compare a search term.
(App. Br. 10–11).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. The Examiner fails to show
the combination of Bates and Gates teaches or suggests limitations
[b1], [b2], and [b3]. Although Bates teaches different types of devices, the
Examiner fails to make findings showing Bates: [b1] determines the device
type and [b2]-[b3], uses the device type to select an index to compare. (Ans.
33–34).
For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we reverse rejection R1 of independent claim 19, and
rejection R1 of associated dependent claim 24, which stands therewith.
CLAIM 21
A.
Regarding the claim 21 limitation (emphasis added):
[a] "storing a plurality of indexes of terms, wherein each index
of terms of the plurality is associated with a specific intent that
is different than the specific intent associated with each other
index of terms of the plurality of index of terms;
Appellants contend,
SBAD 142 is not organized in any way by specific intent. As
FIG. 7 of Gross depicts, SBAD 142 comprises a list of URLs,
query terms, and metrics associated with the list of URLs.
Gross lacks any indication that each distinct set of query terms
in SBAD 142 is associated with a different specific intent.
(App. Br. 10; App. Br. 12 refers to contentions on App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
6
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because Appellants do not
consider the full teachings and suggestions of the cited sections of Gross.
First, Gross's information regarding prior user search behavior associates
queries of search terms ("index of terms of the plurality") with the "interest
and intent of users" ("a specific intent . . . "), thereby teaching or suggesting
limitation [a]. (Gross ¶ 42, ¶ 78, ¶ 85, ¶ 86; Ans. 19, 32).1 Second, Gross's
Figure 7 shows in the surf behavior attribute (SBA) database 142, query
terms 702 ("index of terms") associated with different metrics 722, 724, 726,
728 for URLs 710 ("with a specific intent") (¶ 74), thus teaching or
suggesting limitation [a]. (Ans. 19, 32).
Moreover, Gross's Figure 8 depicts information from the SBAD
database 142, query terms 702 ("index of terms") associated with different
ordered metrics for URLs ("with a specific intent") (¶¶ 85-86), thus teaching
or suggesting limitation [a]. (Ans. 19, 32).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds Gross's embodiment in Figure 13,
paragraph 89, i.e., the stored search terms ("index of terms"), are associated
with the specific intent to go directly to a specific URL ("associated with a
specific intent"), thus teaching or suggesting limitation [a]. (Ans. 19, 32)
Appellants fail to address and rebut these findings.

1 Gross (¶ 42) describes:
The user behavior search engine of the preferred embodiment
compiles information of prior user search behavior with which
the search engine can infer the interests and intent of users,
thereby enabling the search engine to present more relevant
search results to subsequent users conducting the same or a
similar search query. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
7
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
B.
Regarding the claim 21 limitation "comparing said at least one search
term to each index of terms in the plurality of indexes of terms," Appellants
contend Bates and Gross only refer to a single index, not a "plurality of
indexes of terms." (App. Br. 12).
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because, as discussed above
in section A, Gross's information of prior user search behavior (e.g. SBA
database) includes a plurality of queries of search terms we find teaches or
suggests the recited "plurality of indexes of terms," within the meaning of
claim 21.
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we sustain rejection R1 of independent claim 21.

DEPENDENT CLAIMS 17, 18, AND 23
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 23, Appellants argue these claims are
patentable by virtue of their dependency from base claim 21. (Ans. 16, 18).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 17 and 23, and the Examiner's rejection
R2 of claim 18, for the same reasons previously discussed regarding
claim 21.

Appeal 2012-003732
Application 11/838,850
8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 17, 21, and 23 under
§ 103.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection R2 of claim 18 under § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12, 14,
19, 22, and 24 under § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 15, 16, and 20 under
§ 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw