Ex Parte Markanthony et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2012

11332438 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2012)

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.
11/332,438 01/13/2006 Joseph Markanthony U73.12-0022 2363
12208 7590 07/12/2012
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SOMERS, MARC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOSEPH MARKANTHONY and COLIN KARSTEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-0035011
Application 11/332,438
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is United Technologies Corp. (App. Br. 2.)

Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 16, and 17. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 2, 11,
14, and 15 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for obtaining a focused
search result from a database by searching patterns in a sub-collection
corresponding to patterns recognized in the user’s entered keyword search.
(Spec. 2, ll. 12-17.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:

1. A computer-implemented method for providing search
results, the method comprising:

receiving search terms from a user;

recognizing patterns within the search terms received
from the user by comparing the search terms with regular
expressions stored in a database;

selecting sub-collections within an entire collection to
search based on the patterns recognized within the search terms,
wherein each sub-collection is comprised of a plurality of
content sharing at least one attribute having a pattern described
by one of the regular expressions stored in the database;

Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

3
conducting a keyword search of the selected sub-
collections based on the search terms provided by the user for
relevant content; and

providing the user with the relevant content located
within the selected sub-collection.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Leno US Patent App. Pub. No.: 2003/0212663 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
Zimmermann US 6,678,6594 Jun. 13, 2004
Cho US 6,754,650 B2 Jun. 22, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cho and
Zimmermann.
2. Claims 4, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cho, Zimmermann, and Leno.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 7-16.

Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

4
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Cho and Zimmermann teaches or suggests
selecting sub-collections within an entire collection to search based on the
patterns recognized within the search terms entered by a user, as recited
claim 1?
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Cho and Zimmermann teaches or suggests the disputed limitations
emphasized above. In particular, Appellants argue that the cited references
disclose searching the user entered key terms against the entire database as
opposed to searching sub-collections thereof, each containing a plurality of
content sharing at least one attribute having a pattern described by one of the
regular expressions stored in the database. (App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 2-3)
According to Appellants, although Cho discloses indexing each document in
an entire collection, such indexing is not for creating sub-collections. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Cho’s disclosure of parsing a user
query to identify corresponding indices that are used to index a collection of
documents based on a key teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 11-14.)
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
ultimate conclusion of obviousness. As illustrated in Figure 3 in Appellants’
Brief (App. Br. 9), reproduced hereinbelow, Cho discloses using defined
keys (K1, K2) to index an entire collection of documents stored in a
database into a plurality of sub-collections, wherein documents indexed
based on a first key (K1) are grouped as a first sub-collection containing
App
App

docu
(K2)
6. F
comp
betw
docu
42-6
eal 2010-0
lication 11
ments 1, 2
are group
urther, Ch
aring them
een terms
ments ass
3.)
Figure 3
Figure 3
of the se
to highli
referenc

03501
/332,438
, and 4, w
ed as a sec
o discloses
with the
in the pars
ociated the
from App
is Appella
arch algor
ght the dif
e.
hereas doc
ond sub-c
parsing a
keys store
ed query a
rewith are
ellants’ Br
nts’ diagr
ithm descr
ferences b
5
uments in
ollection c
user query
d in the in
nd a key u
displayed
ief (App.
am to illus
ibed in the
etween the
dexed bas
ontaining
into sub-
dices. Up
sed to cre
. (Col. 3, l
Br. 9) is d
trate their
Cho refer
ir inventio
ed on a sec
document
queries an
on finding
ate a sub-c
l. 61-67, c
epicted be
understan
ence prov
n and the
ond key
s 3, 4, and
d
a match
ollection,
ol. 4, ll.
low.

ding
ided
Cho

Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

6
Therefore, we find that Cho’s disclosure of using keys to index
documents within an entire database collection into sub-collections teaches
the disputed limitations. In particular, we find that by grouping the
documents based on a key, the documents within a particular sub-collection
resulting therefrom share at least one attribute as indicated by the key
according to which they are grouped, wherein the key itself has a pattern
described in the database. Because Cho’s disclosed sub-collection comports
with the definition of sub-collection recited in Appellants’ claim, we
conclude that they are equivalent.
Further, we note that the disputed claim language of selecting sub-
collections within the entire collection can be construed as selecting two or
more sub-collections or all the sub-collections that form the entire database
collection. Therefore, even if Cho’s disclosure could be interpreted as
searching the entire indexed collection in the database, it would still fall
within the scope of the claimed invention. We thus find unavailing
Appellants’ arguments that Cho does not teach searching a sub-collection of
documents as opposed to an entire collection of documents. Similarly, we
find unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments that Cho’s disclosure teaches away
from searching the sub-collection. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the
combination of Cho and Zimmermann teaches the disputed limitations. It
follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 over the proffered combination.
As to claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16, Appellants reiterate the
same arguments submitted for patentability of claim 1 above. Further,
Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

7
Appellants allege that the prior art relied upon by the Examiner does not
teach or suggest the limitations of the cited claims. (App. Br. 14-16.) As
discussed above, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 et seq. are
not persuasive.
Further, Appellants’ naked allegations that the recited limitations are
not taught by the references without attempting to indicate how each of the
recited claim languages distinguishes over the recited portions of the prior
art relied upon by the Examiner do not constitute substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner’s findings. Appellants are reminded that merely
reciting the claim language followed by an unsubstantiated allegation of
patentability does not constitute a separate argument for separate
consideration by the Board. See Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Interf. Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). Mere attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It
follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 over the combination of Cho,
Zimmerman, and/or Leno. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c) (1)(vii).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13,
and 16, as set forth above.
Appeal 2010-003501
Application 11/332,438

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh